DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 21-23, 25-34, 36, and 38-42 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21-23, 25-36, and 38-42 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended claims 21, 34, and 40 accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-24, 29-30, 34-37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ghose and Fujita.
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(s) 21-23, 28, 34, 36, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose of US 20180304926 A1, filed 04/20/2017, hereinafter “Ghose”, in view of Fujita of US 20180208199 A1, filed 07/21/2015, hereinafter “Fujita”.
Regarding claim 21, Ghose teaches:
A method performed by one or more computers, the method comprising:
obtaining data specifying a target pull-over location for an autonomous vehicle travelling on a roadway; (See at least [0076]: “Passenger inputs are obtained at 604. In various embodiments, the passenger inputs pertain to a desired destination for travel via the vehicle 10…” & [0046]: “…controller 34 is configured for use in controlling parking, including selection of parking locations, for the vehicle 10.” See also [0038] regarding the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle.)
identifying a plurality of candidate pull-over locations in a vicinity of the target pull-over location; (See at least [0084]: “…possible parking locations…may be identified using the sensor data (e.g., if there is an open location in proximity to the destination 505 in which the vehicle 10 can park)…”)
for each of the plurality of candidate pull-over locations, determining one or more features that are relevant to a predicted position of the autonomous vehicle if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, comprising: (See at least [0073]: “…the possible parking locations 502 are analyzed with respect to a number of different factors, such as respective distances 512 between each parking location 502 and the destination 505, the detected objects 510 and their proximity to the respective parking locations 502, detected traffic flows with respect to each parking location 502…” & [0091]: “…a respective score is calculated by the processor 422 of FIG. 4 for each of the possible parking locations identified at 618. Also in various embodiments, the scores are calculated using each of the criteria analyzed in 619-626…”. See also [0093] regarding a parking situation having a higher score if it minimizes an intrusion into the roadway while the vehicle is parked.)
Ghose does not explicitly teach:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance;
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location.
Fujita teaches:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance; (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When another vehicle V4 travels on the second route BV4S and may affect the traveling of the subject vehicle V1, the drive planning processor 21 executes the following process. The drive planning processor 21 determines whether or not the set plurality of candidate stop positions includes a candidate stop position on a route that is in a different direction from the traveling direction of the subject vehicle V1. In the example illustrated in FIG. 14B, the candidate stop position SP4 exists within a lane region of the second route BV2S which is in a different direction from that of the first route BV1R. The drive planning processor 21 therefore estimates that the stop position for the subject vehicle V1 affects another vehicle V2. The drive planning processor 21 determines the candidate stop position SP3 located prior to (at the upstream side of) the candidate stop position SP4 as the stop position.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When the candidate stop position SP3 is not within the travelable region of the second route, the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as the stop position. According to this example, when the subject vehicle V1 turns to the right and enters the priority road of T-intersection from the non-priority road, the stop position can be determined with consideration for another vehicle V2 traveling from right to left on the second route BV2S as the priority route of the T-intersection and another vehicle V4 traveling from left to right on the second route BV4S. Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4” & [0343]: “(5-5) The drive planning device 20 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions outside/nearside a travelable region of another route as a second route that intersects with the first route. The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated because the subject vehicle V1 is controlled to make a stop at a position that is nearer to the current position of the subject vehicle V1 than a position located inside a lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose’s method with Fujita’s technique of determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop, selecting one of the candidate pull-over locations using the distance, and controlling the vehicle based on the selected pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious so “Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4”, so “the subject vehicle V1 can therefore be controlled to make a stop at the stop position which does not affect other vehicles”, and so “The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See [0218], [0225] & [0343] of Fujita).
Regarding claim 22, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Fujita additionally teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When another vehicle V4 travels on the second route BV4S and may affect the traveling of the subject vehicle V1, the drive planning processor 21 executes the following process. The drive planning processor 21 determines whether or not the set plurality of candidate stop positions includes a candidate stop position on a route that is in a different direction from the traveling direction of the subject vehicle V1. In the example illustrated in FIG. 14B, the candidate stop position SP4 exists within a lane region of the second route BV2S which is in a different direction from that of the first route BV1R. The drive planning processor 21 therefore estimates that the stop position for the subject vehicle V1 affects another vehicle V2. The drive planning processor 21 determines the candidate stop position SP3 located prior to (at the upstream side of) the candidate stop position SP4 as the stop position.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
Regarding claim 23, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Fujita additionally teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to an edge of the roadway. (See at least Fig. 14B, [0218]: “When the candidate stop position SP3 is not within the travelable region of the second route, the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as the stop position. According to this example, when the subject vehicle V1 turns to the right and enters the priority road of T-intersection from the non-priority road, the stop position can be determined with consideration for another vehicle V2 traveling from right to left on the second route BV2S as the priority route of the T-intersection and another vehicle V4 traveling from left to right on the second route BV4S. Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4” & [0343]: “(5-5) The drive planning device 20 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions outside/nearside a travelable region of another route as a second route that intersects with the first route. The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated because the subject vehicle V1 is controlled to make a stop at a position that is nearer to the current position of the subject vehicle V1 than a position located inside a lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
Regarding claim 28, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above.
Fujita additionally teaches:
wherein the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a crosswalk. (See at least Fig. 14B, Fig. 15, [0215]: “When, after controlling the subject vehicle V1 to make a stop at the candidate stop position SP1, the drive planning processor 21 finds a pedestrian at the crosswalk CR1, then the drive planning processor 21 controls the subject vehicle V1 to make a stop again at the candidate stop position SP2 corresponding to the crosswalk CR1” & [0224]: “As such, the candidate stop position SP3 prior to the candidate stop position SP4 is provisionally determined as the stop position. The drive planning processor 21 makes the same determination also for the candidate stop position SP3. The candidate stop position SP3 also interferes with the second route BV2S, so the candidate stop position SP2 prior to the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as a candidate. Here, the candidate stop position SP2 interferes with the crosswalk CR1 which is a second route. Thus, the stop line ST1 is ultimately determined as the stop position.”)
Regarding claim 34, Ghose teaches:
A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: obtaining data specifying a target pull-over location for an autonomous vehicle travelling on a roadway; (See at least [0076]: “Passenger inputs are obtained at 604. In various embodiments, the passenger inputs pertain to a desired destination for travel via the vehicle 10…” & [0046]: “…controller 34 is configured for use in controlling parking, including selection of parking locations, for the vehicle 10.” See also [0038] regarding the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle.)
identifying a plurality of candidate pull-over locations in a vicinity of the target pull-over location; (See at least [0084]: “…possible parking locations…may be identified using the sensor data (e.g., if there is an open location in proximity to the destination 505 in which the vehicle 10 can park)…”)
for each of the plurality of candidate pull-over locations, determining one or more features that are relevant to a predicted position of the autonomous vehicle if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, comprising: (See at least [0073]: “…the possible parking locations 502 are analyzed with respect to a number of different factors, such as respective distances 512 between each parking location 502 and the destination 505, the detected objects 510 and their proximity to the respective parking locations 502, detected traffic flows with respect to each parking location 502…” & [0091]: “…a respective score is calculated by the processor 422 of FIG. 4 for each of the possible parking locations identified at 618. Also in various embodiments, the scores are calculated using each of the criteria analyzed in 619-626…”. See also [0093] regarding a parking situation having a higher score if it minimizes an intrusion into the roadway while the vehicle is parked.)
Ghose does not explicitly teach:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance;
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location.
Fujita teaches:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance; (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When another vehicle V4 travels on the second route BV4S and may affect the traveling of the subject vehicle V1, the drive planning processor 21 executes the following process. The drive planning processor 21 determines whether or not the set plurality of candidate stop positions includes a candidate stop position on a route that is in a different direction from the traveling direction of the subject vehicle V1. In the example illustrated in FIG. 14B, the candidate stop position SP4 exists within a lane region of the second route BV2S which is in a different direction from that of the first route BV1R. The drive planning processor 21 therefore estimates that the stop position for the subject vehicle V1 affects another vehicle V2. The drive planning processor 21 determines the candidate stop position SP3 located prior to (at the upstream side of) the candidate stop position SP4 as the stop position.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When the candidate stop position SP3 is not within the travelable region of the second route, the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as the stop position. According to this example, when the subject vehicle V1 turns to the right and enters the priority road of T-intersection from the non-priority road, the stop position can be determined with consideration for another vehicle V2 traveling from right to left on the second route BV2S as the priority route of the T-intersection and another vehicle V4 traveling from left to right on the second route BV4S. Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4” & [0343]: “(5-5) The drive planning device 20 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions outside/nearside a travelable region of another route as a second route that intersects with the first route. The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated because the subject vehicle V1 is controlled to make a stop at a position that is nearer to the current position of the subject vehicle V1 than a position located inside a lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose’s method with Fujita’s technique of determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to the target pull-over location, selecting one of the candidate pull-over locations using the distance, and controlling the vehicle based on the selected pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious so “Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4”, so “the subject vehicle V1 can therefore be controlled to make a stop at the stop position which does not affect other vehicles”, and so “The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See [0218], [0225] & [0343] of Fujita).
Regarding claim 36, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 34 as discussed above.
Fujita additionally teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to an edge of the roadway. (See at least Fig. 14B, [0218]: “When the candidate stop position SP3 is not within the travelable region of the second route, the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as the stop position. According to this example, when the subject vehicle V1 turns to the right and enters the priority road of T-intersection from the non-priority road, the stop position can be determined with consideration for another vehicle V2 traveling from right to left on the second route BV2S as the priority route of the T-intersection and another vehicle V4 traveling from left to right on the second route BV4S. Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4” & [0343]: “(5-5) The drive planning device 20 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions outside/nearside a travelable region of another route as a second route that intersects with the first route. The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated because the subject vehicle V1 is controlled to make a stop at a position that is nearer to the current position of the subject vehicle V1 than a position located inside a lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
Regarding claim 40, Ghose teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: obtaining data specifying a target pull-over location for an autonomous vehicle travelling on a roadway; (See at least [0076]: “Passenger inputs are obtained at 604. In various embodiments, the passenger inputs pertain to a desired destination for travel via the vehicle 10…” & [0045-0046]: “The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer-readable storage device or media 46…controller 34 is configured for use in controlling parking, including selection of parking locations, for the vehicle 10.” See also [0038] regarding the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle.)
identifying a plurality of candidate pull-over locations in a vicinity of the target pull-over location; (See at least [0084]: “…possible parking locations…may be identified using the sensor data (e.g., if there is an open location in proximity to the destination 505 in which the vehicle 10 can park)…”)
for each of the plurality of candidate pull-over locations, determining one or more features that are relevant to a predicted position of the autonomous vehicle if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, comprising: (See at least [0073]: “…the possible parking locations 502 are analyzed with respect to a number of different factors, such as respective distances 512 between each parking location 502 and the destination 505, the detected objects 510 and their proximity to the respective parking locations 502, detected traffic flows with respect to each parking location 502…” & [0091]: “…a respective score is calculated by the processor 422 of FIG. 4 for each of the possible parking locations identified at 618. Also in various embodiments, the scores are calculated using each of the criteria analyzed in 619-626…”. See also [0093] regarding a parking situation having a higher score if it minimizes an intrusion into the roadway while the vehicle is parked.)
Ghose does not explicitly teach:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to an edge of the roadway, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance;
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the edge of the roadway, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location.
Fujita teaches:
determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to an edge of the roadway, wherein the one or more features comprise the distance; (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When another vehicle V4 travels on the second route BV4S and may affect the traveling of the subject vehicle V1, the drive planning processor 21 executes the following process. The drive planning processor 21 determines whether or not the set plurality of candidate stop positions includes a candidate stop position on a route that is in a different direction from the traveling direction of the subject vehicle V1. In the example illustrated in FIG. 14B, the candidate stop position SP4 exists within a lane region of the second route BV2S which is in a different direction from that of the first route BV1R. The drive planning processor 21 therefore estimates that the stop position for the subject vehicle V1 affects another vehicle V2. The drive planning processor 21 determines the candidate stop position SP3 located prior to (at the upstream side of) the candidate stop position SP4 as the stop position.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
selecting, using the one or more features comprising the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the edge of the roadway, one of the candidate pull-over locations as an actual pull-over location for the autonomous vehicle; and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 14B & [0218]: “When the candidate stop position SP3 is not within the travelable region of the second route, the candidate stop position SP3 is determined as the stop position. According to this example, when the subject vehicle V1 turns to the right and enters the priority road of T-intersection from the non-priority road, the stop position can be determined with consideration for another vehicle V2 traveling from right to left on the second route BV2S as the priority route of the T-intersection and another vehicle V4 traveling from left to right on the second route BV4S. Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4” & [0343]: “(5-5) The drive planning device 20 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions outside/nearside a travelable region of another route as a second route that intersects with the first route. The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated because the subject vehicle V1 is controlled to make a stop at a position that is nearer to the current position of the subject vehicle V1 than a position located inside a lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.” See also [0221-0225] & Fig. 15 regarding determining if a candidate stop position interferes with a route of another vehicle then selecting a different candidate stop position that is farther away from the route of the other vehicle.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose’s method with Fujita’s technique of determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to an edge of the roadway, selecting one of the candidate pull-over locations using the distance, and controlling the vehicle based on the selected pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious so “Stopping is thus possible at a natural stop position that does not affect the other vehicles V2 and V4”, so “the subject vehicle V1 can therefore be controlled to make a stop at the stop position which does not affect other vehicles”, and so “The influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See [0218], [0225] & [0343] of Fujita).
Claim(s) 25-26 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose in view of Fujita and further in view of Iagnemma of US 20180113455 A1, filed 10/20/2016, hereinafter “Iagnemma”.
Regarding claim 25, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway.
Iagnemma teaches:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway. (See at least [0026]: “The analyzing of current information includes analyzing distance of respective stopping places from the goal position. The analyzing of current information includes analyzing information about respective positions of the vehicle at the potential stopping places” & [0057-0062]: “At least the following complexities must be taken into account in determining and updating a selected stopping place…The coordinates of the goal position may correspond to an acceptable stopping place where a road or driveway exists, but the AV may not have map information sufficient to enable it to determine that the goal position represents such an acceptable stopping place. This circumstance may occur on private roads or grounds, such as private residences, shopping malls, corporate campuses, or other private sites. In other words, such an acceptable stopping place is not a feasible stopping place.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Iagnemma’s technique of including a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway. Doing so would be obvious so that “pick up or drop-off or other stopped activity can be done safely or legally or conveniently or expeditiously, among other criteria” and to “enable the AV to select and then drive to a selected stopping place within the goal region that is acceptable, feasible, and desirable” (See [0060] of Iagnemma).
Regarding claim 26, Ghose, Fujita, and Iagnemma in combination teach all the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above.
Iagnemma additionally teaches:
wherein the driveway is an unmapped driveway. (See at least [0062]: “The coordinates of the goal position may correspond to an acceptable stopping place where a road or driveway exists, but the AV may not have map information sufficient to enable it to determine that the goal position represents such an acceptable stopping place.”)
Regarding claim 38, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 34 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway.
Iagnemma teaches:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway. (See at least [0026]: “The analyzing of current information includes analyzing distance of respective stopping places from the goal position. The analyzing of current information includes analyzing information about respective positions of the vehicle at the potential stopping places” & [0057-0062]: “At least the following complexities must be taken into account in determining and updating a selected stopping place…The coordinates of the goal position may correspond to an acceptable stopping place where a road or driveway exists, but the AV may not have map information sufficient to enable it to determine that the goal position represents such an acceptable stopping place. This circumstance may occur on private roads or grounds, such as private residences, shopping malls, corporate campuses, or other private sites. In other words, such an acceptable stopping place is not a feasible stopping place.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Iagnemma’s technique of including a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a driveway. Doing so would be obvious so that “pick up or drop-off or other stopped activity can be done safely or legally or conveniently or expeditiously, among other criteria” and to “enable the AV to select and then drive to a selected stopping place within the goal region that is acceptable, feasible, and desirable” (See [0060] of Iagnemma).
Regarding claim 39, Ghose, Fujita, and Iagnemma in combination teach all the limitations of claim 38 as discussed above.
Iagnemma additionally teaches:
wherein the driveway is an unmapped driveway. (See at least [0062]: “The coordinates of the goal position may correspond to an acceptable stopping place where a road or driveway exists, but the AV may not have map information sufficient to enable it to determine that the goal position represents such an acceptable stopping place.”)
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose in view of Fujita and further in view of Beaurepaire of US 11062602 B1, filed 05/01/2020, hereinafter “Beaurepaire”.
Regarding claim 27, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a fire hydrant.
Beaurepaire teaches:
wherein determining the distance from the candidate pull-over location to the corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop comprises: determining a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a fire hydrant. (See at least col. 7, lines 16-29: “In FIG. 4D, a vehicle 401d parks on a street in front of an entrance 405d of a point of interest 403d (e.g., an apartment) to drop off a ride-sharing passenger, which is within 15 feet of a fire hydrant 411.")
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Beaurepaire’s technique of including a distance from the candidate pull-over location to a fire hydrant. Doing so would be obvious for minimizing “the disruption for nearby vehicles” when finding a parking location (See col. 5, lines 57-63 of Beaurepaire).
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose in view of Fujita and further in view of Zalila of US 20040020699 A1, filed 06/21/2003, hereinafter “Zalila”.
Regarding claim 29, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to an edge of the roadway if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location.
Zalila teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to an edge of the roadway if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location. (See at least [0086]: “This test 5 makes it possible to evaluate the distance to the edge (5) of the parking zone (2) as well as the orientation of the vehicle once the realignment phase is concluded. This test 5 is an end of maneuver test and it is validated when the vehicle is suitably parked. To do this, test 5 pertains to the front right distance variable (ddav) and heading of the vehicle (heading) which must respectively lie in a lateral position of parking instruction interval [.lambda..sub.1, .lambda..sub.2] (in meters) and lie in a zero orientation instruction interval (4.sub.1, 4.sub.2) (in radians) and it is validated when these two conditions are fulfilled.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Zalila’s technique of determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to an edge of the roadway if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious for “impeding the flow of other vehicles” and “verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [0008] & [0018] of Zalila).
Regarding claim 30, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to a baseline if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, wherein the baseline is a line where the autonomous vehicle drives without pulling over.
Zalila teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to a baseline if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, wherein the baseline is a line where the autonomous vehicle drives without pulling over. (See at least [0086]: “This test 5 makes it possible to evaluate the distance to the edge (5) of the parking zone (2) as well as the orientation of the vehicle once the realignment phase is concluded. This test 5 is an end of maneuver test and it is validated when the vehicle is suitably parked. To do this, test 5 pertains to the front right distance variable (ddav) and heading of the vehicle (heading) which must respectively lie in a lateral position of parking instruction interval [.lambda..sub.1, .lambda..sub.2] (in meters) and lie in a zero orientation instruction interval (4.sub.1, 4.sub.2) (in radians) and it is validated when these two conditions are fulfilled.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Zalila’s technique of determining an angle of the autonomous vehicle relative to a baseline if the autonomous vehicle pulls over at the candidate pull-over location, wherein the baseline is a line where the autonomous vehicle drives without pulling over. Doing so would be obvious for “impeding the flow of other vehicles” and “verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [0008] & [0018] of Zalila).
Regarding claim 31, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a lateral distance from an initial pull-over location to a baseline, wherein the initial pull-over location is a location while the autonomous vehicle is pulling over to the candidate pull-over location to arrive at a pulled-over location that is as close to an edge of the roadway as possible, wherein the baseline is a line where the autonomous vehicle drives without pulling over.
Zalila teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a lateral distance from an initial pull-over location to a baseline, wherein the initial pull-over location is a location while the autonomous vehicle is pulling over to the candidate pull-over location to arrive at a pulled-over location that is as close to an edge of the roadway as possible, wherein the baseline is a line where the autonomous vehicle drives without pulling over. (See at least Fig. 2 & [0086]: "This test 5 makes it possible to evaluate the distance to the edge (5) of the parking zone (2) as well as the orientation of the vehicle once the realignment phase is concluded. This test 5 is an end of maneuver test and it is validated when the vehicle is suitably parked. To do this, test 5 pertains to the front right distance variable (ddav) and heading of the vehicle (heading) which must respectively lie in a lateral position of parking instruction interval [.lambda..sub.1, .lambda..sub.2] (in meters) and lie in a zero orientation instruction interval (4.sub.1, 4.sub.2) (in radians) and it is validated when these two conditions are fulfilled.")
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Zalila’s technique of including a lateral distance from an initial pull-over location to a baseline. Doing so would be obvious for “impeding the flow of other vehicles” and “verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [0008] & [0018] of Zalila).
Claim(s) 32 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose in view of Fujita and further in view of Takei of US 20220410890 A1, filed 12/02/2019, hereinafter “Takei”.
Regarding claim 32, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull- over location.
Takei teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull- over location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0066]: "The sensor 11 detects a width W1 in which the oncoming vehicle 51 can keep traveling while avoiding the parked vehicle 52, as illustrated in FIG. 4. The width W1 can be obtained such that the vehicle width of the oncoming vehicle 51 is added to the space sufficient to avoid a collision between the oncoming vehicle 51 and the parked vehicle 52. The sensor 11 then detects a remaining lane width W2 obtained such that the vehicle width of the parked vehicle 52 (the vehicle width overlapping with the road) and the width W1 are subtracted from the entire road width.")
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Takei’s technique of measuring a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious “for enabling the host vehicle 50 and the oncoming vehicle 51 to safely pass the parked vehicle 52 simultaneously” (See [0066] of Takei).
Regarding claim 41, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 34 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location.
Takei teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0066]: "…The sensor 11 detects a width W1 in which the oncoming vehicle 51 can keep traveling while avoiding the parked vehicle 52, as illustrated in FIG. 4. The width W1 can be obtained such that the vehicle width of the oncoming vehicle 51 is added to the space sufficient to avoid a collision between the oncoming vehicle 51 and the parked vehicle 52. The sensor 11 then detects a remaining lane width W2 obtained such that the vehicle width of the parked vehicle 52 (the vehicle width overlapping with the road) and the width W1 are subtracted from the entire road width...")
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Takei’s technique of measuring a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious “for enabling the host vehicle 50 and the oncoming vehicle 51 to safely pass the parked vehicle 52 simultaneously” (See [0066] of Takei).
Regarding claim 42, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location.
Takei teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0066]: "…The sensor 11 detects a width W1 in which the oncoming vehicle 51 can keep traveling while avoiding the parked vehicle 52, as illustrated in FIG. 4. The width W1 can be obtained such that the vehicle width of the oncoming vehicle 51 is added to the space sufficient to avoid a collision between the oncoming vehicle 51 and the parked vehicle 52. The sensor 11 then detects a remaining lane width W2 obtained such that the vehicle width of the parked vehicle 52 (the vehicle width overlapping with the road) and the width W1 are subtracted from the entire road width...")
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Takei’s technique of measuring a width of a corridor that other vehicles on the roadway pass the autonomous vehicle after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious “for enabling the host vehicle 50 and the oncoming vehicle 51 to safely pass the parked vehicle 52 simultaneously” (See [0066] of Takei).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghose in view of Fujita and further in view of Dyer of US 20210053567 A1, filed 08/21/2018, hereinafter “Dyer”.
Regarding claim 33, Ghose and Fujita in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Ghose and Fujita in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining data indicating whether the autonomous vehicle is double parked after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location.
Dyer teaches:
wherein determining the one or more features for each of the candidate pull-over locations comprises determining data indicating whether the autonomous vehicle is double parked after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. (See at least [0044-0045]: "…the various signals may be collected about pullover (where a vehicle can literally “pullover” or simply park in a designated parking space) locations. These pullover locations may already be known, for instance, and may be stored in map information as described above. Some of these signals may collected while driving a vehicle, such as any of vehicles 100, 100A, 100B, 100C, around and collecting sensor data such as available curb space (i.e. how much of gap or how much room a vehicle has to fit within a pullover location has), how far to the right a vehicle is able to get (i.e. width of the pullover location), traffic congestion at different days of the week and times of day, the type of road at which the pullover location is located (i.e. high speed/highway or low speed/residential), whether a pullover location is occupied, whether a vehicle is double-parked at the pullover location…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to combine Ghose and Fujita’s method with Dyer’s technique of determining data indicating whether the autonomous vehicle is double parked after the autonomous vehicle is pulled over at the candidate pull-over location. Doing so would be obvious to “reduce the amount of time that the vehicle may spend looking for a pullover location and also reduce inconvenience convenient to passenger and other road users” (See [0019] of Dyer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200223439 A1 is directed to determining an initial stop position candidate is included in a parking and stopping prohibition region and changing the stop position to a position outside the parking and stopping prohibition region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
