Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s intention to preserve the original claim numbering until close of prosecution, consistent with MPEP § 608.01(j).
The claims as amended overcome the previous objections of record, and those objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: at line 3 (“wherein no specific destination is set”), the limitation lacks a comma at the end; this seems incorrect and is inconsistent with independent claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-2, 6, 10-11, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180154824 by Urano et al. (hereinafter “Urano”), further in view of US20190212749 by Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Urano teaches An intelligent driving method, comprising: performing roaming by a vehicle based on a [,] see for example paragraph [0024], where the system describes a “following road autonomous driving mode” consisting of driving autonomously without a set destination. The system uses maps in setting its traveling plan, as described in paragraphs [0051] and [0054].
wherein the roaming comprises lane switching, driving direction changing, or partial navigation strategy changing without interrupting an overall navigation process, see for example paragraph [0063], where the following road autonomous driving mode displays the direction of the planned route to the driver, including left or right turns.
and wherein the operation of the driver comprises lever shifting, voice control, button control, or gesture control. See for example paragraphs [0080] and [0049], where the system can switch modes based on driver input. The input to the system would be via HMI touchscreen or switch, as described in paragraph [0039].
Urano does not explicitly teach a high-definition map, although Urano does describe using a map generally in paragraph [0035] for example.
However, Chen teaches navigating a vehicle based on a high-definition map. See for example paragraph [0037].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the destinationless driving of Urano with the high-definition map of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to use more accurate maps for making lane-level navigational decisions, improving the safety of the system.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Urano teaches a method further comprising obtaining, based on an iterative forward search, a planned route of the vehicle at a road intersection ahead in a driving direction of the vehicle, wherein the planned route comprises a default navigation route of the vehicle at the road intersection. See for example paragraphs [0052]-[0054] where the traveling plan generation unit makes a travel plan for the vehicle when no destination is set, including through intersections and branching paths.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Chen does teach a method further comprising: obtaining a direction of an operation intention of the driver; obtaining a lane in which the vehicle is currently located and a default turn type for the lane; and enforcing, when the lane in which the vehicle is currently located is not a side lane in the direction of the operation intention of the driver and when a current turn type of the vehicle is consistent with the default turn type for the lane, a lane switching decision on the vehicle, wherein a turn type of the vehicle after lane switching is a default turn type for a lane in which the vehicle is located. See paragraph [0097], where the driver indicates a direction to turn, causing the vehicle to change its route (from the old instruction or turn type to a new, “default”, turn) in response to the trigger. See also paragraphs [0102]-[0103] and [0139], where the vehicle is following a predefined route to the end location (“default”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the destinationless driving of Urano with the high-definition map of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to use more accurate maps for making lane-level navigational decisions, improving the safety of the system.
Claim 19 has similar limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Chen does teach a method further comprising setting, when the direction of the operation intention of the driver is consistent with a direction indicated by the current turn type of the vehicle and when the vehicle is located in the side lane in the direction indicated by the operation intention of the driver, a turn type of the vehicle to a next turn type consistent with the direction of the operation intention of the driver. See again paragraph [0097], where the vehicle can easily follow an off-ramp or lane split from the current lane (e.g. in the case where “a keep right control operand for following the lane split right”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the destinationless driving of Urano with the high-definition map of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to use more accurate maps for making lane-level navigational decisions, improving the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Urano teaches a method further comprising displaying information related to the roaming in a human-machine interaction interface of the vehicle, wherein the human-machine interaction interface comprises at least one of a vehicle central control screen or a head-up display. See for example paragraph [0061], where the system displays the route ahead of the vehicle in the following road autonomous driving mode. See paragraph [0039] describing the HMI display.
Claims 3-5, 7, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Chen as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of US20200290619 by Mehdi et al. (hereinafter “Mehdi”).
Regarding claim 3, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Mehdi does teach wherein the planned route is based on a turn behavior cost, a turn angle cost, and a lowest turn cost, and wherein a route with the lowest turn cost is the default navigation route. See for example paragraphs [0047]-[0049], where the system has a desired maneuver to perform (such as merging onto a highway), and attempts to complete the maneuver so long as it is the lowest cost maneuver. See also paragraphs [0034] or [0050], where the system evaluates the cost of segment maneuvers, including turnings speed, acceleration, and distances, which drive up the cost of the route as a whole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless routing system of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with the maneuver cost system of Mehdi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to carefully plan its maneuvers, picking the maneuvers with the lowest cost.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Urano teaches wherein a trigger condition of the iterative forward search comprises at least one of there being no planned route ahead of the vehicle, the vehicle passing through a road intersection, a distance between the vehicle and a maximum range of a current forward search being less than a specified threshold, or the vehicle yawing. See for example paragraph [0052], where the vehicle travel unit generates a plan based on a destination not being set.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Mehdi does teach wherein the default navigation route at the road intersection is based on driver habit cost. See for example paragraphs [0033]-[0034], where the system can be set to either a “comfort” or “aggressive” driving mode, and paragraphs [0044]-[0045], where the user can select the driving mode; in both sections, the system determines if the upcoming maneuver requires adjusting the driving mode based on the cost values of the maneuver.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless routing system of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with the maneuver cost system of Mehdi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to carefully plan its maneuvers, picking the maneuvers with the lowest cost.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Mehdi does teach wherein the default turn type for a next road intersection in the driving direction of the vehicle comprises a road branch corresponding to a turn type with a lowest turn cost of the vehicle in the current lane, and wherein a default turn type of the vehicle after the lane switching comprises, when the vehicle performs lane switching, an action with a lowest turn cost of the vehicle in a switched-to lane for a next road intersection in a driving direction of the vehicle. See again paragraphs [0047]-[0049], where the system has a desired maneuver to perform (such as merging onto a highway), and attempts to complete the maneuver so long as it is the lowest cost maneuver. See also paragraphs [0034] or [0050], where the system evaluates the cost of segment maneuvers, including turnings speed, acceleration, and distances, which drive up the cost of the route as a whole.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless routing system of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with the maneuver cost system of Mehdi with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to carefully plan its maneuvers, picking the maneuvers with the lowest cost.
Claim 20 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claims 8-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Chen as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of US20200208998 by Xiang et al. (hereinafter “Xiang”).
Regarding claim 8, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Xiang does teach a method further comprising ignoring the operation of the driver when a distance between the vehicle and a next road fork is less than a safe distance. See for example paragraphs [0152]-[0155], where the system determines whether or not to turn based on a threshold safe distance from an upcoming intersection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless navigation system of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with safety proximity threshold system of Xiang with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to turn, or ignore a planned turn, based on safe proximity to the intersection, increasing the safety of the system.
Claim 21 has similar limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Xiang does teach a method further comprising setting the current turn type to the default turn type when a distance between the vehicle and a next road fork is greater than a safe distance when the direction of the operation intention of the driver is opposite to the current turn type of the vehicle. See for example paragraphs [0152]-[0155], where the system determines whether or not to turn based on a threshold safe distance from an upcoming intersection.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless navigation system of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with safety proximity threshold system of Xiang with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to turn, or ignore a planned turn, based on safe proximity to the intersection, increasing the safety of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20160356623 by Matsumoto (hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 12, Urano does not explicitly teach, but Matsumoto teaches a method further comprising when the high-definition map fails, prompting the driver to perform takeover or prompting that an automated driving capability of the vehicle is degraded. See for example paragraph [0048], where mapped roads which are unusable for automatic driving are displayed to the driver.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the destinationless navigation of Urano, modified by the HD maps of Chen, with the map display system of Matsumoto with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to display areas where autonomous driving is impossible, helping the driver determine a better travel route.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20180364709 by Choi et al. teaching semi-autonomous driving mode where the vehicle drives autonomously according to the driver input.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666