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 Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 21-23, 25-36, and 38-42 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Fujita.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-36, and 38-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 (and claims 34 and 40 by reciting analogous limitations) recites “…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…” in lines 12-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation since the claim as written is unclear on whether the distance is a feature (see lines 7-10: “…determining one or more features that are relevant to a predicted position…comprising: determining a distance…”).
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;
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; (See at least [0249]: “…Specifically, the drive planning processor 21 determines whether the position of each candidate stop position exists within the region of a second route and whether the position of each candidate stop position does not exist within a parking and stopping prohibition region” & [0190]: “…sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited…”)
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 (See at least [0190]: “The drive planning processor 21 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited, that is, outside/nearside the parking and stopping prohibition region…” & [0250]: “When, in step S24, there are a number of candidate stop positions after being narrowed down, the routine proceeds to step S25 in which the drive planning processor 21 selects a candidate stop position which the subject vehicle V1 encounters first. In step S26, the drive planning processor 21 determines a stop position.”)
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least [0190]: “…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 than the stop position defined in the actual traffic rule information 224” & [0347]: “…The travel assistance apparatus 100 determines a stop position for the subject vehicle to make a stop, in accordance with determination results for relationships between the subject vehicle and the plurality of events which the subject vehicle encounters at the candidate stop positions, and controls the subject vehicle to make a stop at the stop position…”)
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 “the influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See at least [0190] 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 [0189]: “The drive planning processor 21 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than stop positions required for the subject vehicle V1 to make a stop. 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 than the stop position defined in the actual traffic rule information 224.”)
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 [0191]: “The drive planning processor 21 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 the lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.”)
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 [0206]: “…In the example illustrated in FIG. 13D, the drive planning processor 21 sets a candidate stop position SP1 in the vicinity of the stop line ST1, sets a candidate stop position SP2 in the vicinity of the center R0 of the intersection, and sets a candidate stop position SP3 before the crosswalk CR2. The candidate stop position SP1 is set at an upstream position (position at the subject vehicle V1 side) separate from the stop line ST1 by a predetermined distance…”)
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 a corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop;
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; (See at least [0249]: “…Specifically, the drive planning processor 21 determines whether the position of each candidate stop position exists within the region of a second route and whether the position of each candidate stop position does not exist within a parking and stopping prohibition region” & [0190]: “…sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited…”)
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 (See at least [0190]: “The drive planning processor 21 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited, that is, outside/nearside the parking and stopping prohibition region…” & [0250]: “When, in step S24, there are a number of candidate stop positions after being narrowed down, the routine proceeds to step S25 in which the drive planning processor 21 selects a candidate stop position which the subject vehicle V1 encounters first. In step S26, the drive planning processor 21 determines a stop position.”)
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least [0190]: “…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 than the stop position defined in the actual traffic rule information 224” & [0347]: “…The travel assistance apparatus 100 determines a stop position for the subject vehicle to make a stop, in accordance with determination results for relationships between the subject vehicle and the plurality of events which the subject vehicle encounters at the candidate stop positions, and controls the subject vehicle to make a stop at the stop position…”)
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 “the influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See at least [0190] of Fujita).
Regarding claim 35, 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 the target pull-over location. (See at least [0189]: “The drive planning processor 21 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than stop positions required for the subject vehicle V1 to make a stop. 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 than the stop position defined in the actual traffic rule information 224.”)
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 [0191]: “The drive planning processor 21 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 the lane of the second route or than the outer edge of the travelable region.”)
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 a corresponding type of road feature at which vehicles are not permitted to stop;
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; (See at least [0249]: “…Specifically, the drive planning processor 21 determines whether the position of each candidate stop position exists within the region of a second route and whether the position of each candidate stop position does not exist within a parking and stopping prohibition region” & [0190]: “…sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited…”)
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 (See at least [0190]: “The drive planning processor 21 according to one or more embodiments of the present invention sets the candidate stop positions at positions located at a further upstream side by predetermined distances than an outer edge of a region in which parking and stopping of the subject vehicle V1 are prohibited, that is, outside/nearside the parking and stopping prohibition region…” & [0250]: “When, in step S24, there are a number of candidate stop positions after being narrowed down, the routine proceeds to step S25 in which the drive planning processor 21 selects a candidate stop position which the subject vehicle V1 encounters first. In step S26, the drive planning processor 21 determines a stop position.”)
controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the actual pull-over location. (See at least [0190]: “…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 than the stop position defined in the actual traffic rule information 224” & [0347]: “…The travel assistance apparatus 100 determines a stop position for the subject vehicle to make a stop, in accordance with determination results for relationships between the subject vehicle and the plurality of events which the subject vehicle encounters at the candidate stop positions, and controls the subject vehicle to make a stop at the stop position…”)
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 “the influence on the traffic stream can be mitigated” (See at least [0190] 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 discloses all the limitations of claim 24 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 col. 8, lines 24-32: “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” & col. 6, lines 4-8: “…The analyzing of current information includes analyzing information about respective positions of the vehicle at the potential stopping places…”)
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” (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 col. 8, lines 24-32: “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 does 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 col. 8, lines 24-32: “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” & col. 6, lines 4-8: “…The analyzing of current information includes analyzing information about respective positions of the vehicle at the potential stopping places…”)
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” (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 col. 8, lines 24-32: “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 24 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 “verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [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 “verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [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 “the advantage of verifying, during the vehicle parking operation, whether the vehicle's immediate surroundings have not altered with respect to the start of the maneuver” (See [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 including 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 inconvenience to the passenger and/or other vehicles” (See [0077] of Dyer).
Conclusion
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 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
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights