DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, and 17-18, the closest prior art, Wang et al. (US 20190051159 Al), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claim limitations of the dependent claims listed above.
Wang teaches assigning a first and second agility levels to vehicles in a traffic segment (Wang, “[0044] As noted above, three types of vehicle driving conditions may be defined for analyzing the driving status of an autonomous vehicle, as follows: [0045] Maximum: The autonomous vehicle has already attained its maximum speed and is moving forward at its maximum speed. [0046] Deadlock: The autonomous vehicle has not yet attained its maximum speed. In addition, the autonomous vehicle is blocked from accelerating and changing lanes by other autonomous vehicles. Therefore, the autonomous vehicle may have to follow a vehicle traveling at a lower speed. [0047] Freerun: The autonomous vehicle is neither in the maximum condition nor in the deadlock condition. The autonomous vehicle is able to accelerate, although it has not yet attained its maximum speed.”), but fails to specifically teach the first agility level comprises a higher agility level than the second agility level; and the first driving maneuver involves a more rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver and the first agility level comprises a lower agility level than the second agility level; and the first driving maneuver involves a less rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12118884 B2 in view of Wang et al. (US 20190051159 A1).
Instant Application
US Patent No. US 12118884 B2
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a first driving maneuver for a first vehicle in a traffic segment based on a first agility level for the first vehicle and a second agility level for a second vehicle in the traffic segment, wherein the first agility level is different from the second agility level;
determining a second driving maneuver for the second vehicle based on the first driving maneuver;
executing the first driving maneuver for the first vehicle; and
executing the second driving maneuver for the second vehicle.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the first agility level comprises a higher agility level than the second agility level; and
the first driving maneuver involves a more rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning the first vehicle to a first traffic role based on the first agility level; and
assigning the second vehicle to a second traffic role based on the second agility level.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein:
the first traffic role comprises a first maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the first traffic role; and
the second traffic role comprises a second maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the second traffic role.
7. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and comprising computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
determine a first driving maneuver for a first vehicle in a traffic segment based on a first agility level for the first vehicle and a second agility level for a second vehicle in the traffic segment, wherein the first agility level is different from the second agility level;
determine a second driving maneuver for the second vehicle based on the first driving maneuver;
execute the first driving maneuver for the first vehicle; and
execute the second driving maneuver for the second vehicle.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein:
the first agility level comprises a higher agility level than the second agility level; and
the first driving maneuver involves a more rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver.
10. The system of claim 7, wherein the memory comprises further computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
assign the first vehicle to a first traffic role based on the first agility level; and
assign the second vehicle to a second traffic role based on the second agility level.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein:
the first traffic role comprises a first maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the first traffic role; and
the second traffic role comprises a second maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the second traffic role.
16. A vehicle comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and including computer code, that when executed, causes the vehicle to:
determine a first driving maneuver for the vehicle based on a first agility level for the vehicle and a second agility level for a second vehicle, wherein:
the vehicle and the second vehicle are in a common traffic segment, and
the first agility level is different from the second agility level;
determine a second driving maneuver for the second vehicle based on the first driving maneuver;
execute the first driving maneuver for the vehicle; and
execute the second driving maneuver for the second vehicle.
17.The vehicle of claim 16, wherein:
the first agility level comprises a higher agility level than the second agility level; and
the first driving maneuver involves a more rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver.
19.The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the memory comprises further computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the vehicle to:
assign the vehicle to a first traffic role based on the first agility level; and
assign the second vehicle to a second traffic role based on the second agility level.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining a first agility level for a first connected vehicle in a traffic segment and a second agility level for a second connected vehicle in the traffic segment;
assigning a first traffic role to the first connected vehicle in the traffic segment based on the first agility level; assigning a second traffic role to the second connected vehicle based on the second agility level;
executing, a first driving maneuver for the first connected vehicle according to a first driving policy for the first traffic role;
and executing a second driving maneuver for the second connected vehicle according to a second driving policy for the second traffic role;
wherein the first agility level comprises a higher agility level than the second agility level; and
wherein the first driving maneuver involves a more rapid velocity change than the second driving maneuver.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first and second traffic roles each comprise a maneuver space associated with the traffic role, the maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for a connected vehicle assigned to the traffic role.
As illustrated in the table above, all matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Regarding claims 7, 10, 16, and 19, Patent No. US 12118884 B2 teaches most of the claim limitations, as shown in the table above, but fails to specifically teach one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and comprising computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches one or more processors; and memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and comprising computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to: (Wang, para. [0016] “Each autonomous vehicle may include a processor, and memory media storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement a cooperative driving strategy.”)
Regarding claim 16, Patent No. US 12118884 B2 teaches most of the claim limitations, as shown in the table above, but fails to specifically teach wherein the vehicle and the second vehicle are in a common traffic segment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein the vehicle and the second vehicle are in a common traffic segment, (Wang, para. [0057] “Method 300 also includes, at 304, the given autonomous vehicle initiating formation of a coordination group including the given autonomous vehicle itself, a front autonomous vehicle traveling in the same lane, and an assistant autonomous vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patent No. US 12118884 B2 to include a processor and memory to control vehicles in a common traffic segment in order to avoid unnecessary traffic congestion by intelligently identifying current driving conditions and take appropriate actions (Wang, para. [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-12, 14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20190051159 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Wang teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a first driving maneuver for a first vehicle in a traffic segment based on a first agility level for the first vehicle and a second agility level for a second vehicle in the traffic segment, wherein the first agility level is different from the second agility level;
(Wang – [0069] “In this example, it is assumed that autonomous vehicles 572 in lane 570, 586 in lane 580, and 592 in lane 590 are each traveling at the same maximum speed, while the autonomous vehicles 582 and 584 in lane 580 are not yet traveling at their respective maximum speeds. It is also assumed that the maximum speed of autonomous vehicles 572, 586, and 592 is lower than the maximum speed of autonomous vehicle 584 in lane 580. In the example traffic arrangement shown in FIG. 5B, in which autonomous vehicles 572, 586, and 592 have occupied all three lanes in front of autonomous vehicle 584 in lane 580 and are traveling at a maximum speed that is slower than the maximum speed of autonomous vehicle 584, autonomous vehicle 584, having no chance to accelerate to pass autonomous vehicles 572, 586, and 592 without cooperation from other vehicles, is identified as being in the deadlock condition.” [0070] “To resolve the deadlock condition for vehicle 584, an efficient cooperative autonomous driving strategy may be determined and implemented by the members of coordination group 560.”)
determining a second driving maneuver for the second vehicle based on the first driving maneuver;
(Wang – [0099] “In this example, the messages exchanged between the three autonomous vehicles in order to implement an altruistic cooperative driving strategy to resolve the deadlock condition of current autonomous vehicle current vehicle 584 include front vehicle control setup 810 (from current vehicle 584 to front vehicle 586), front vehicle control confirmation 812 (from front vehicle 586 to current vehicle 584), front vehicle task information 814 (from current vehicle 584 to front vehicle 586) indicating a cooperative driving task to be performed by front vehicle 586, front vehicle task confirmation 816 (from front vehicle 586 to current vehicle 584), assistant vehicle control setup 818 (from front vehicle 586 to assistant vehicle 572), assistant vehicle control confirmation 820 (from assistant vehicle 572 to front vehicle 586), assistant vehicle task information 822 (from front vehicle 586 to assistant vehicle 572) indicating a cooperative driving task to be performed by assistant vehicle assistant vehicle 572, and assistant vehicle task confirmation 824 (from assistant vehicle 572 to front vehicle 586).”)
executing the first driving maneuver for the first vehicle; and
executing the second driving maneuver for the second vehicle.
(Wang – [0125] “FIG. 11C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1120, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1120 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including front autonomous vehicle 1112 changing lanes to allow current autonomous vehicle 1110 to escape the deadlock condition. Because autonomous vehicle 1118 is traveling in front of assistant autonomous vehicle 1114, before autonomous vehicle 1112 can change lanes, not only does assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 need to reduce its speed, but front autonomous vehicle 1112 also needs to reduce its speed. In this example, front autonomous vehicle 1112 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the speed of autonomous vehicle 1118, and assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the reduced speed of front autonomous vehicle 1112.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Wang further teaches:
further comprising:
assigning the first vehicle to a first traffic role based on the first agility level; and
assigning the second vehicle to a second traffic role based on the second agility level.
(Wang – [0006] “The method may also include initiating, by the given autonomous vehicle, formation of a coordination group including three of the autonomous vehicles, the three autonomous vehicles including the given autonomous vehicle, a front autonomous vehicle traveling in front of and in a same driving lane as the given autonomous vehicle, and an assistant autonomous vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the lane in which the given autonomous vehicle and the front autonomous vehicle are traveling, and sending, by the given autonomous vehicle using vehicle-to-vehicle communication, a cooperative driving task request to initiate actions by two or more autonomous vehicles in the coordination group to resolve the deadlock condition.”
Examiner’s note: Where the vehicle being assigned as the given autonomous vehicle, the front autonomous vehicle, or the assistant autonomous vehicle corresponds to the traffic role assigned to one or more connected vehicles.)
Regarding claim 5,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Wang further teaches:
wherein:
the first traffic role comprises a first maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the first traffic role; and
the second traffic role comprises a second maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the second traffic role.
(Wang – Fig. 6, [0119] “FIG. 10C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1020, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1020 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including autonomous vehicle 1012 changing lanes to allow autonomous vehicle 1010 to escape the deadlock condition. Specifically, FIG. 10C illustrates that autonomous vehicle 1014 reduces its speed to create a gap into which autonomous vehicle 1012 can change lanes, after which autonomous vehicle 1012 begins moving into the target lane.”
Examiner’s note: Where the autonomous vehicle is permitted to change lanes and accelerate only when there is space to do so and the autonomous vehicle is not permitted to change lanes when there are vehicles occupying adjacent lanes or accelerate to the maximum speed if there is a slower moving vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle. Therefore, the autonomous vehicle has a set of maneuvers that are allowed depending on the location of other vehicles which corresponds to the maneuver space defining the permissible driving maneuvers.)
Regarding claim 6,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Wang further teaches:
wherein:
the first maneuver space defines the first driving maneuver as a permissible maneuver; and
the second maneuver space defines the second driving maneuver as a permissible maneuver.
(Wang – [0125] “FIG. 11C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1120, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1120 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including front autonomous vehicle 1112 changing lanes to allow current autonomous vehicle 1110 to escape the deadlock condition. Because autonomous vehicle 1118 is traveling in front of assistant autonomous vehicle 1114, before autonomous vehicle 1112 can change lanes, not only does assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 need to reduce its speed, but front autonomous vehicle 1112 also needs to reduce its speed. In this example, front autonomous vehicle 1112 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the speed of autonomous vehicle 1118, and assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the reduced speed of front autonomous vehicle 1112.”)
Regarding claim 7,
Claim 7 recites a system, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Wang further teaches:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and comprising computer code, that when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
(Wang – [0016] “Each autonomous vehicle may include a processor, and memory media storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement a cooperative driving strategy.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a system, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 recites a system, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 5 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a system, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 6 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Wang further teaches:
wherein the system is implemented in a vehicle in the traffic segment.
(Wang – [0006] “The method may also include initiating, by the given autonomous vehicle, formation of a coordination group including three of the autonomous vehicles, the three autonomous vehicles including the given autonomous vehicle, a front autonomous vehicle traveling in front of and in a same driving lane as the given autonomous vehicle, and an assistant autonomous vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the lane in which the given autonomous vehicle and the front autonomous vehicle are traveling…” [0016] “Each autonomous vehicle may include a processor, and memory media storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement a cooperative driving strategy.”)
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 recites a vehicle, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Wang further teaches:
A vehicle comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory operatively connected to the one or more processors and including computer code, that when executed, causes the vehicle to:
(Wang – [0016] “Each autonomous vehicle may include a processor, and memory media storing program instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to implement a cooperative driving strategy.”)
the vehicle and the second vehicle are in a common traffic segment, and
(Wang – [0057] “Method 300 also includes, at 304, the given autonomous vehicle initiating formation of a coordination group including the given autonomous vehicle itself, a front autonomous vehicle traveling in the same lane, and an assistant autonomous vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane.”)
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 recites a vehicle, comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 4 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Wang further teaches:
wherein:
the first traffic role comprises a first maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the first traffic role;
the second traffic role comprises a second maneuver space defining permissible driving maneuvers for the second traffic role;
(Wang – Fig. 6, [0119] “FIG. 10C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1020, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1020 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including autonomous vehicle 1012 changing lanes to allow autonomous vehicle 1010 to escape the deadlock condition. Specifically, FIG. 10C illustrates that autonomous vehicle 1014 reduces its speed to create a gap into which autonomous vehicle 1012 can change lanes, after which autonomous vehicle 1012 begins moving into the target lane.”
Examiner’s note: Where the autonomous vehicle is permitted to change lanes and accelerate only when there is space to do so and the autonomous vehicle is not permitted to change lanes when there are vehicles occupying adjacent lanes or accelerate to the maximum speed if there is a slower moving vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle. Therefore, the autonomous vehicle has a set of maneuvers that are allowed depending on the location of other vehicles which corresponds to the maneuver space defining the permissible driving maneuvers.)
the first maneuver space defines the first driving maneuver as a permissible maneuver; and
the second maneuver space defines the second driving maneuver as a permissible maneuver.
(Wang – [0125] “FIG. 11C illustrates that, subsequent to the formation of coordination group 1120, the autonomous vehicles in coordination group 1120 begin to take cooperative actions to resolve the deadlock condition, including front autonomous vehicle 1112 changing lanes to allow current autonomous vehicle 1110 to escape the deadlock condition. Because autonomous vehicle 1118 is traveling in front of assistant autonomous vehicle 1114, before autonomous vehicle 1112 can change lanes, not only does assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 need to reduce its speed, but front autonomous vehicle 1112 also needs to reduce its speed. In this example, front autonomous vehicle 1112 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the speed of autonomous vehicle 1118, and assistant autonomous vehicle 1114 reduces its speed to a speed slower than the reduced speed of front autonomous vehicle 1112.”)
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190051159 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 20180005527 A1).
Regarding claim 13,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Wang does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Bostick teaches:
wherein the system comprises a cloud-based system.
(Bostick – [0034] “To this extent, the navigation control server has a navigation controller 82, which can be a remote cloud-based traffic application that can collect data from a communications component 78 located on each of the plurality of vehicles (e.g., UAVs 76A-N). Navigation controller 82 can use these navigation communications 88 to formulate instructions for one or more of the vehicles (e.g., UAV 76A), which can be sent to the one or more vehicles (e.g., UAV 76 A) in the form of navigation communications 88.”)
Bostick is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to communication between connected autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Bostick to so that each vehicle does not need its own controller (Bostick para. [0032]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190051159 A1) in view of Ran et al. (US 20180336780 A1).
Regarding claim 15,
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Wang does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ran teaches:
wherein the system is implemented in a piece of infrastructure adjacent the traffic segment.
(Ran – Fig. 10, [0133] “The Road Side Units (RSU 306), which represents small control units that receive data and requests from connected vehicles, detect traffic state, and send instructions to targeted vehicles.”)
Ran is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to monitoring and controlling connected autonomous vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Ran to put the controller taught by Wang in infrastructure units as taught by Ran to create a communication system of redundancy and reliability between road side units and autonomous vehicles (Ran para. [0132]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Vassilovski et al. (US 20210192939 A1) discloses a first traversing vehicle comprises a car traveling from a point of ingress to a point of egress along a first traversal path. Because the first traversing vehicle is relatively small and maneuverable, it can navigate the first traversal path without blocking access to the intersection by other vehicles at other points of ingress.
Miyagawa (US 20220398928 A1) discloses a case where a drone itself has the ability to avoid other flight vehicles so as to avoid collisions with other flight vehicles, the drone can safely fly even without any support from air traffic control if the density of drones in the exclusive controlled airspace does not exceed a certain level. Therefore, control may be performed in such a way as to permit a plurality of drones to fly in a single exclusive controlled airspace if the drones each have the ability to avoid other flight vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668