DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2022/060966, filed on 04/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/18/2024 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 20, 21, 22, and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 reads “is configured” but should read “is further configured”.
Claim 21 reads “comprising means) but should read “further comprising means”.
Claim 22 reads “computer program comprising” but should read “computer program further comprising”.
Claim 23 reads “computer program comprising” but should read “computer program further comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-24 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 20180329428 A1) in view of (US 20200057451 A1) to Robert et al. (hereinafter Robert).
Regarding claim 1, Nagy discloses A computer-implemented method for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, the method comprising: (Nagy Paragraph 0006: “One example aspect of the present disclosure is directed to a computer-implemented method of controlling navigation of an autonomous vehicle.”)
Nagy does not disclose […] using a predetermined map of the area for the navigation, wherein the predetermined map comprises a plurality of connected segments, each segment defining a portion of a driving response to obtaining a mission instruction, navigating the autonomous vehicle from one point to another point in the area by path for the autonomous vehicle to follow; in finding a driving path defined by a number of connected segments of the plurality of connected segments, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with the following predetermined rule for the autonomous vehicle: a predetermined navigation rule defining which sensor to use for the navigation in the at least one segment.
However, Robert does teach […] using a predetermined map of the area for the navigation, wherein the predetermined map comprises a plurality of connected segments, each segment defining a portion of a driving response to obtaining a mission instruction, navigating the autonomous vehicle from one point to another point in the area by path for the autonomous vehicle to follow; in finding a driving path defined by a number of connected segments of the plurality of connected segments, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with the following predetermined rule for the autonomous vehicle: (Robert Paragraph 0014: “The invention also provides: a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle covering a zone comprising path segments, wherein, for each path segment, the map includes a final autonomy index obtained by taking a weighted mean of primary autonomy indices in accordance with at least two distinct autonomy functions; and an application of this autonomy map to determining a resulting path by adding autonomy parameters to the various parameters (travel time, toll booths, . . . ) that are presently in use for determining a path.”) a predetermined navigation rule defining which sensor to use for the navigation in the at least one segment. (Robert Paragraph 0028: “By way of example, the navigation unit has a GPS module and a module for planning itineraries on the basis of map data comprising the autonomy map. The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include […] using a predetermined map of the area for the navigation, wherein the predetermined map comprises a plurality of connected segments, each segment defining a portion of a driving response to obtaining a mission instruction, navigating the autonomous vehicle from one point to another point in the area by path for the autonomous vehicle to follow; in finding a driving path defined by a number of connected segments of the plurality of connected segments, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with the following predetermined rule for the autonomous vehicle: a predetermined navigation rule defining which sensor to use for the navigation in the at least one segment taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 2, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined access key for the autonomous vehicle, wherein the predetermined access key must be accessible for the autonomous vehicle in order to be allowed to drive in the at least one segment. (Nagy Paragraph 0090: “At (604), method 600 can include accessing, retrieving, or otherwise obtaining constraint data descriptive of one or more geographic areas and/or geographic identifiers within a map (e.g., map data accessed at (602)) for which associated navigational constraints are defined.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0091: “In some implementations, constraint data accessed at (604) can include one or more portions of base constraint data applied to a particular autonomous vehicle. In some implementations, the portions of base constraint data selected for application to a particular vehicle can depend at least in part on factors such as the operation location, operating mode, or other factors associated with each autonomous vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 3, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is varied over time. (Nagy Paragraph 0115: “As described herein, the traffic monitoring resources 905 can monitor live traffic conditions for the given region and identify lane or road segments that are currently jammed with traffic, blocked, or otherwise inaccessible. The traffic monitoring resources 905 can be crowd-sourced or updated by users of a live traffic mapping resource or application, or can comprise a central monitoring service that continually updates traffic conditions on a granular level (e.g., every road segment of the given region). In some aspects, the traffic monitoring resources 905 can indicate the source for a live traffic constraint, as well as the road or lane segment(s) affected. In doing so, the traffic monitoring resources 905 can provide the remote computing device 950 with contextual information for the live traffic constraint.”) (Note: Over time depending on traffic the vehicle will have a constraint that may or may not allow the vehicle to have access to the road segment)
Regarding claim 4, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on if another vehicle is currently driving in the at least one segment. (Nagy Paragraph 0091: “In such examples, the remote computing device 950 can selectively transmit the traffic flow constraint information to only those autonomous vehicles 990 that are routed to converge towards or intersect with the excluded road or lane segments.”) (Note: The traffic flow depends on the vehicles in the road segment)
Regarding claim 5, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 2,wherein the accessibility of the predetermined access key is dependent on the type and/or characteristics of the autonomous vehicle. (Nagy Paragraph 0091: “In some implementations, constraint data accessed at (604) can include one or more portions of base constraint data applied to a particular autonomous vehicle. In some implementations, the portions of base constraint data selected for application to a particular vehicle can depend at least in part on factors such as the operation location, operating mode, or other factors associated with each autonomous vehicle. Different operating modes can include, for example, a fully autonomous mode in which an autonomous vehicle 102 operates without a human driver present in the vehicle, an autonomous mode in which the autonomous vehicle operates with a human driver in the vehicle, or other modes. Different operating modes can additionally or alternatively include, for example, whether a vehicle is currently engaged (e.g., on-task) or not engaged (e.g., off-task) in performing a service.”)
Regarding claim 8, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is varied over time.
However, Robert teaches The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is varied over time. (Robert Paragraph 0022: “The weighting coefficients may be determined a priori, or they may be updated periodically or in real time depending on traffic conditions (a weather event such as fog, the presence of an accident or of roadworks).”) (Note: Traffic conditions change over time therefore changing the navigation rule over time) (Robert Paragraph 0027: “FIG. 5 shows the result of calculating a weighted mean on the basis of the above three. It can be seen that the quality of the GPS index over a portion of rue de Rivoli is degraded in part by the other autonomy functions. Nevertheless, a correction can be carried out using the INS autonomy function. It should be observed in this context that the quality of the index depends on the quality of the components used.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is varied over time taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 9, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time.
However, Robert teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time. (Robert Paragraph 0022: “The weighting coefficients may be determined a priori, or they may be updated periodically or in real time depending on traffic conditions (a weather event such as fog, the presence of an accident or of roadworks).”) (Note: Traffic conditions change over time therefore changing the navigation rule over time) (Robert Paragraph 0027: “FIG. 5 shows the result of calculating a weighted mean on the basis of the above three. It can be seen that the quality of the GPS index over a portion of rue de Rivoli is degraded in part by the other autonomy functions. Nevertheless, a correction can be carried out using the INS autonomy function. It should be observed in this context that the quality of the index depends on the quality of the components used.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 8, wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 10, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on at least one of ambient weather conditions and time of day during driving in the area.
However, Robert teaches The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on at least one of ambient weather conditions (Robert Paragraph 0022: “The weighting coefficients may be determined a priori, or they may be updated periodically or in real time depending on traffic conditions (a weather event such as fog, the presence of an accident or of roadworks).”) (Robert Paragraph 0027: “FIG. 5 shows the result of calculating a weighted mean on the basis of the above three. It can be seen that the quality of the GPS index over a portion of rue de Rivoli is degraded in part by the other autonomy functions. Nevertheless, a correction can be carried out using the INS autonomy function. It should be observed in this context that the quality of the index depends on the quality of the components used.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”) and time of day during driving in the area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on at least one of ambient weather conditions and time of day during driving in the area taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 11, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a change of at least one of ambient weather conditions and light conditions during driving in the area.
However, Robot does teach The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a change of at least one of ambient weather conditions (Robert Paragraph 0022: “The weighting coefficients may be determined a priori, or they may be updated periodically or in real time depending on traffic conditions (a weather event such as fog, the presence of an accident or of roadworks).”) (Robert Paragraph 0027: “FIG. 5 shows the result of calculating a weighted mean on the basis of the above three. It can be seen that the quality of the GPS index over a portion of rue de Rivoli is degraded in part by the other autonomy functions. Nevertheless, a correction can be carried out using the INS autonomy function. It should be observed in this context that the quality of the index depends on the quality of the components used.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”) and light conditions during driving in the area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a change of at least one of ambient weather conditions and light conditions during driving in the area taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 12, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment.
However, Robert does teach The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment. (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on an accessibility to a navigation satellite system in the at least one segment taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 14, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 1,wherein at least one of the connected segments is associated with a predetermined trigger rule to trigger a work task, such as a loading or unloading sequence, for the autonomous vehicle at a point in time when the autonomous vehicle is driving in the at least one segment. (Nagy Paragraph 0062: “The computing device(s) 106 can also include a route determiner 122 configured to determine travel routes for the autonomous vehicle 102 based at least in part on the map data 118 evaluated relative to the constraint data 120. In some examples, travel routes can be determined by route determiner 122 in accordance with a navigational objective (e.g., traveling to a destination location to perform a service such as rideshare service, delivery service, courier service, etc.). Route determiner 122 can evaluate the map data 118 in association with the constraint data 120 to determine which travel way portions are included and/or which travel way portions are excluded.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0119: “For example, the remote computing device 950 can manage an on-demand transport service that routes the autonomous vehicles 990 throughout the given region based on user demands (e.g., for freight delivery, food delivery, passenger transport, etc.).”) (Note: Delivery=unloading)
Regarding claim 15, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 14, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is varied over time. (Nagy Paragraph 0120: “For example, the remote computing device 950 or other transportation coordination system can provide the autonomous vehicles 990 with a sequence of destinations for making pick-ups and drop-offs. The on-board computing systems of the autonomous vehicles 990 can generate respective route plans to autonomously drive to a next destination. Based on the constraint file(s), comprising the traffic flow constraint information, received from the remote computing device 950, the autonomous vehicles 990 can inherently avoid the exclusion zones or forbidden road segments. Accordingly, the remote computing device 950 can leverage the live-traffic constraints and planned closures indicated by the traffic monitoring resources 905 and central planning resources 910 to create exclusion zones within the given region in which the autonomous vehicles 990 operate.”) (Note: When the trigger rules is determined the routes changes of where to go to unload/load goods based on traffic constraints over time thus changing the routes of the vehicle to unload/load goods) (Nagy Paragraph 0121: “FIG. 14 depicts an example flow chart of a method (1000) of providing up-to-date route constraint information to autonomous vehicles according to example embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
Regarding claim 16, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on a transformation of the area over time. (Nagy Paragraph 0120: “For example, the remote computing device 950 or other transportation coordination system can provide the autonomous vehicles 990 with a sequence of destinations for making pick-ups and drop-offs. The on-board computing systems of the autonomous vehicles 990 can generate respective route plans to autonomously drive to a next destination. Based on the constraint file(s), comprising the traffic flow constraint information, received from the remote computing device 950, the autonomous vehicles 990 can inherently avoid the exclusion zones or forbidden road segments. Accordingly, the remote computing device 950 can leverage the live-traffic constraints and planned closures indicated by the traffic monitoring resources 905 and central planning resources 910 to create exclusion zones within the given region in which the autonomous vehicles 990 operate.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0121: “FIG. 14 depicts an example flow chart of a method (1000) of providing up-to-date route constraint information to autonomous vehicles according to example embodiments of the present disclosure.”)
Regarding claim 17, Nagy discloses The method according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined trigger rule is dependent on the transformation of the area over time in that a loading position or an unloading position for the autonomous vehicle in the at least one segment is varied in dependence on the transformation of the area. (Nagy Paragraph 0099: “In some examples, travel routes determined at (610) can be determined in accordance with a navigational objective (e.g., traveling to a destination location to perform a service such as rideshare service, delivery service, courier service, etc.). In some examples, travel routes determined at (610) can be determined to accomplish the navigational objective using travel way portions that are permitted and/or preferred as opposed to forbidden and/or not preferred based on map data evaluated in association with constraint data. In some implementations, for example, it may be desirable to forbid or not prefer specific areas or specific travel ways within an area due to events such as a traffic accident, street fair, construction, or the like. In other implementations, for example, it may be desirable to permit or prefer specific areas or specific travel ways within an area for navigation by particular autonomous vehicles that are assigned to perform services in a given area, thus affording efficient distribution of fleet resources.”) (Note: If the segment is free from obstruction when traveling to a destination once reaching the destination the vehicle can load or unload)
Regarding claim 18, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein at least one of the plurality of connected segments is adjusted over time, such as adjusted in dependence on a transformation of the area over time.
However, Robert does teach The method according to claim 1,wherein at least one of the plurality of connected segments is adjusted over time, such as adjusted in dependence on a transformation of the area over time. (Robert Paragraph 0022: “The weighting coefficients may be determined a priori, or they may be updated periodically or in real time depending on traffic conditions (a weather event such as fog, the presence of an accident or of roadworks).”) (Note: Traffic conditions change over time therefore changing the navigation rule over time) (Robert Paragraph 0027: “FIG. 5 shows the result of calculating a weighted mean on the basis of the above three. It can be seen that the quality of the GPS index over a portion of rue de Rivoli is degraded in part by the other autonomy functions. Nevertheless, a correction can be carried out using the INS autonomy function. It should be observed in this context that the quality of the index depends on the quality of the components used.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein at least one of the plurality of connected segments is adjusted over time, such as adjusted in dependence on a transformation of the area over time taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 19, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments.
However, Robert does teach The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments. (Robert Paragraph 0014: “The invention also provides: a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle covering a zone comprising path segments, wherein, for each path segment, the map includes a final autonomy index obtained by taking a weighted mean of primary autonomy indices in accordance with at least two distinct autonomy functions; and an application of this autonomy map to determining a resulting path by adding autonomy parameters to the various parameters (travel time, toll booths, . . . ) that are presently in use for determining a path.”) (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomy map is used both by the navigation unit for determining an itinerary depending on the indices for the segments traveled, and by the driver unit that determines, depending on the segments being traveled, which sensors should be given precedence (for example, in a zone where GPS signals are received with poor quality, GPS information should be ignored for driving the vehicle in order to limit any risk that taking such information into account would degrade the accuracy of autonomous driving).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined keys and/or rules are assigned to different segments of the plurality of segments taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 20, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose A control unit for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1.
However, Robert does teach A control unit for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1. (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomous vehicle suitable for performing the method of the invention has an automatic driver unit and a navigation unit. The automatic driver unit is connected to the control members of the vehicle such as the steering system, the engine, the braking system, and also to sensors for detecting the behavior of the vehicle and of the surroundings of the vehicle, and it incorporates calculation means enabling the control members to be driven on the basis of information provided by the sensors so that the vehicle remains on a determined path while complying with traffic regulations. By way of example, the navigation unit has a GPS module and a module for planning itineraries on the basis of map data comprising the autonomy map.”) (Note: Control unit = automatic drive unit)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include A control unit for navigating an autonomous vehicle when driving in an area, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 21, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 20, accordingly, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated above.
Nagy does not disclose An autonomous vehicle comprising means for navigating the vehicle in an area, and further comprising a control unit according to claim 20.
However, Robot does teach An autonomous vehicle comprising means for navigating the vehicle in an area, and further comprising a control unit according to claim 20. (Robert Paragraph 0028: “The autonomous vehicle suitable for performing the method of the invention has an automatic driver unit and a navigation unit. The automatic driver unit is connected to the control members of the vehicle such as the steering system, the engine, the braking system, and also to sensors for detecting the behavior of the vehicle and of the surroundings of the vehicle, and it incorporates calculation means enabling the control members to be driven on the basis of information provided by the sensors so that the vehicle remains on a determined path while complying with traffic regulations. By way of example, the navigation unit has a GPS module and a module for planning itineraries on the basis of map data comprising the autonomy map.”) (Note: Control unit = automatic drive unit)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy to include An autonomous vehicle comprising means for navigating the vehicle in an area, and further comprising a control unit according to claim 20 taught by Robert. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method of preparing a navigation autonomy map for a vehicle, which method is reliable over all of the segments of a path in a given zone. [Robert Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 22, Nagy discloses A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer. (Nagy Paragraph 0072: “The remote computing device(s) 150 can include one or more processors 152 and a memory 154. The one or more processors 152 can be any suitable processing device (e.g., a processor core, a microprocessor, an ASIC, a FPGA, a controller, a microcontroller, etc.) and can be one processor or a plurality of processors that are operatively connected. The memory 154 can include one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums, such as RAM, ROM, EEPROM, EPROM, flash memory devices, magnetic disks, etc., and combinations thereof. The memory 154 can store data 156 and instructions 158 which are executed by the processor 152 to cause the remote computing device(s) 150 to perform operations.”)
Regarding claim 23, Nagy discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program product is run on a computer. (Nagy Paragraph 0072: “The remote computing device(s) 150 can include one or more processors 152 and a memory 154. The one or more processors 152 can be any suitable processing device (e.g., a processor core, a microprocessor, an ASIC, a FPGA, a controller, a microcontroller, etc.) and can be one processor or a plurality of processors that are operatively connected. The memory 154 can include one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums, such as RAM, ROM, EEPROM, EPROM, flash memory devices, magnetic disks, etc., and combinations thereof. The memory 154 can store data 156 and instructions 158 which are executed by the processor 152 to cause the remote computing device(s) 150 to perform operations.”)
Regarding claim 24, Nagy discloses A control system for controlling a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are driving in an area, wherein the autonomous vehicles are vehicles according to claim 21, and wherein the control system is configured to provide one or more mission instructions to each respective vehicle, wherein any one of the mission instructions is indicative of driving from one point to another point in the area. (Nagy Paragraph 0008: “The autonomous vehicle includes one or more communication interfaces for wirelessly communicating with one or more remote computing devices configured to control operation of a fleet of autonomous vehicles, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations.”) (Nagy Paragraph 0033: “Constraint data can be received, for example, from one or more remote computing devices configured to control operation of a fleet of autonomous vehicles. Map data descriptive of the identity and location of different travel ways within the surrounding environment of the autonomous vehicle can be accessed and evaluated relative to the constraint data in order to determine a travel route for navigating the autonomous vehicle.”)
6. Claims 6 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 20180329428 A1) in view of (US 20200057451 A1) to Robert et al. (hereinafter Robert) and further in view of (US 20200004261 A1) to Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 6, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Nagy in view of Robert does not teach The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle.
However, Kim does teach The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle. (Kim Paragraph 0017: “Further, the checking of module information may include receiving information related to at least one of a type, a size, and a weight of the service module from the service module or from a server based on a downlink grant, and in the controlling of a driving operation, the driving operation may be controlled based on at least one of the type, the size, and the weight of the service module and the driving route.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy in view of Robert to include The method according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the autonomous vehicle are related to at least one of a weight of the vehicle, a weight of a load carried by the vehicle and a type of load carried by the vehicle taught by Kim. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient method of an autonomous vehicle that controls driving of a vehicle based on module information of a loaded service module and a driving route. [Kim Paragraph 0014]
7. Claims 7 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 20180329428 A1) in view of (US 20200057451 A1) to Robert et al. (hereinafter Robert) and further in view of (US 9547986 B1) to Curlander et al. (hereinafter Curlander).
Regarding claim 7, Nagyin view of Robert teaches claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated above.
Nagy in view of Robert does not teach The method according to claim 2,wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle.
However, Curlander does teach The method according to claim 2,wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, (Curlander Column 12, line number 28-37: “Accordingly, the roadway management system 115 can assign lane configurations 151 to a majority of the lanes in a roadway such that traffic flows in the first direction of travel. However, at a different, second time of day, a large number of requests may include a request to traverse the roadway in the opposite direction of travel. Accordingly, the roadway management system 115 can assign a lane configuration 151 to a majority of lanes so that traffic flows in the opposite direction during the second time of day.”) and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle. (Curlander Column 3, line number 47-51: “For example, a particular lane can be designated as a westbound travel lane during a certain time of the day by the roadway management system 115 and as an eastbound travel lane during another time of day.”) (Curlander Column 13, line number 56-67: “The request generated by the autonomous vehicle controller 160 can also include a requested velocity, a requested time or time range during which the vehicle 105 is requesting to enter or arrive at the roadway, or any other request parameters. At box 318, the autonomous vehicle controller 160 can obtain a roadway assignment 187 associated with the request to use roadway from the roadway management system 115. The roadway assignment 187 can identify a lane assignment within the roadway, a time or time range at which the vehicle 105 can enter the roadway and a velocity or velocity range that the vehicle 105 is permitted to maintain during its use of the roadway.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy in view of Robert to include The method according to claim 2,wherein at least one segment which is associated with a predetermined access key is a single lane driving path in which vehicles are allowed to be driven in opposite directions, and wherein the predetermined access key is only accessible to the autonomous vehicle when the single lane driving path is at least free from other vehicles driving in an opposite direction with respect to the autonomous vehicle taught by Curlander. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more effective roadway management system that can assign usage of a roadway to an autonomous vehicle by assigning a particular lane in a portion of a roadway during a particular period of time and at a particular velocity or velocity range. [Curlander Column 2, line number 13-17]
8. Claims 13 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Nagy (US 20180329428 A1) in view of (US 20200057451 A1) to Robert et al. (hereinafter Robert) and further in view of (US 20220281456 A1) to Giovanardi et al. (hereinafter Giovanardi).
Regarding claim 13, Nagy in view of Robert teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Nagy in view of Robert does not teach The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment.
However, Giovanardi does teach The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment. (Giovanardi Paragraph 0066: “The sensor systems used for this application are vulnerable to multiple potential failures, including sensor obscurement through reflections or dirt on the glass; sensor function reduction due to environmental conditions such as rain, fog, snow; and a possible general inability to identify lane markers, for example due to lighting problems such as darkness.”) (Giovanardi Paragraph 0067: “Once an accurate location is known, and given the typical path driven by other vehicles, this information may be used to determine any undesired deviations from the path by the current vehicle. These deviations may be used as an additional input for the driver assistance feature, for example as a redundant sensor to confirm validity of the planned path, as a fallback sensor to bridge sections of road with insufficient markings (such as for example at intersections where the lane markings on one side of the road are discontinued), or as additional input into a sensor fusion to determine the vehicle's position and planned path.”) (Note: Rain or snow changes the fiction level of a road)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagy in view of Robert to include The method according to claim 1,wherein the predetermined navigation rule is dependent on a surface friction level in the at least one segment taught by Giovanardi. This would have been for the benefit to provide a more efficient method of obtaining a road profile of a road segment the vehicle is traveling on, determining a location of the vehicle based at least partly on the road profile, and determining one or more operating parameters of one or more vehicle systems based at least partially on the location of the vehicle. [Giovanardi Paragraph 0004]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664