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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/25/2024. Claims 11-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/25/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner points out that claim 16 is drawn to a method that includes one or more limitations that are conditional because they utilize the term “if”. While this is perfectly acceptable claim construction, it is often the case that an Applicant is unaware that the use of “if” (instead of “when”, for example) makes those limitations conditional. For example, a method with a limitation that says “do X if Y occurs” can be met by a reference that simply never has Y occur, and thus doing X is not required. Likewise, if the “if” was changed to a “when” (i.e. “do X when Y occurs”), the limitation would not be met by a reference unless it discloses/teaches/suggests doing X whenever Y occurs. As such, it is suggested by the Examiner to amend this method claim if it is the Applicant’s desire to make those particular limitations required versus conditional (and thus potentially optional depending on the prior art applied). Appropriate correction is suggested but not required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…a multi-lane road…the road…the road…the road…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “…a multi-lane road…the multi-lane road…the multi-lane road…the multi-lane road…”.
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…the dimensions…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… a dimension…”, or the like.
Claim 11 as currently presented states “…a user…further road users…the road users…the road users…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “…a user…further road users…the users…the users…” or similarly, “…a user…further road users…the further road users…the further road users…”.
Claim 12 as currently presented states “…the longitudinal speed…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… a longitudinal speed…”.
Claim 12 as currently presented states “…the lateral distance…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… a lateral distance…”.
Claim 13 as currently presented states “…a first escalation level…the level…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “…a first escalation level…the first escalation level…”.
Claim 16 as currently presented states “…the longitudinal speed…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… a longitudinal speed…”.
Claim 17 as currently presented states “…various vehemence levels…”; claims 18-19 both depend on claim 17, and states “…the vehemence levels…” which the Examiner recommends updating claims 18 and 19 so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “…the various vehemence levels…”.
Claim 18 as currently presented states “…the executed escalation level…the escalation levels…the attempted duration…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… an executed escalation level…the executed escalation levels… an attempted duration…”, or similarly “… an executed escalation level… an escalation level… an attempted duration…”, or the like.
Claim 19 as currently presented states “…the vehemence levels…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “… a vehemence level …”, or the like.
Claim 19 as currently presented states “…a course of the longitudinal speed…” which is not a phrase that one of ordinary skill in the art may be familiar with. The Examiner will interpret the claim according to a broadest reasonable interpretation, such that changes in longitudinal speed according to the proximity of an exit are noted/profiled. The Examiner recommends elaborating on this claim, so that the phrase may be more accurately describe what is occurring.
Claim 20 as currently presented states “…a vehicle…a method…” which the Examiner recommends updating so as to prevent potential misinterpretation, such as “…[ [ a ] ] the vehicle…[ [ a ] ] the method…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al. (US-2022/0185289; hereinafter Arora) in view of Geller (US-2018/0339708).
Regarding claim 11, Arora discloses a method for assisting a user of a vehicle when maneuvering the vehicle on a multi-lane road (see Arora at least [0072] "Memory 418 and 440 are examples of non-transitory computer-readable media. Memory 418 and 440 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein and the functions attributed to the various systems..." and [0101] "A. A method comprising: receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with a vehicle traversing an environment, the environment comprising a first lane associated with a current position of the vehicle and a second lane proximate the first lane; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a presence of an object in the environment and a predicted behavior of the object; defining, as a first configuration space and based at least in part on maximum acceleration and a maximum deceleration of the vehicle, a first portion of the first lane; defining, as a second configuration space and based at least in part on the maximum acceleration and the maximum deceleration, a second portion of the second lane; determining, based at least in part on the predicted behavior of the object, the first configuration space, and the second configuration space, a first gap associated with the first lane and a second gap associated with the second lane; determining, based at least in part on the first gap and the second gap, a trajectory for performing a lane change operation; determining a cost associated with the trajectory; and based at least in part on a determination that the cost is below a threshold, controlling the vehicle to perform the lane change operation based at least in part on the trajectory."), comprising:
receiving a navigation command to guide the vehicle from a second lane of the road via a first lane of the road (see Arora at least [0045] "...In at least one example, a trajectory with a lowest cost (e.g., the trajectory that minimizes costs associated with the lane change operation) can be determined and used for generating commands for controlling the vehicle 200 to perform the lane change operation...") …
preparing a lane change maneuver from the second lane to the first lane (see Arora at least [0023] "At operation 122, a planner component associated with the vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102 can determine, based on the gap(s), a trajectory 124 for causing the vehicle 102 to perform a lane change operation in the environment 100. In at least one example, the planner component can compare a trajectory 124 with gap(s) determined as described above. In some examples, the planner component can compare a trajectory 124 with gap(s) determined in different phases of a lane change operation. In at least one example, such phases can include, but are not limited to, a preparation phase, a merge phase, and a target phase...");
searching for suitable gaps for the vehicle between further road users on the first lane to carry out the lane change maneuver (see Arora at least [0020]-[0022] "At operation 110, a gap finder component associated with vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102, can determine gap(s) in the environment 100... In at least one example, a space associated with a constraint can be referred to as a “constraint space.” In at least one example, constraint(s) can be modeled (e.g., projected) in a coordinate space representative of the environment 100 and a gap can be determined by finding a space within which the vehicle 102 can move (e.g., is capable of moving) that does not violate the constraint(s)... While a single gap 120 is illustrated in FIG. 1, in some examples, a plurality of gaps can be determined, and each gap can be associated with a cost indicating a quality of the gap. A cost associated with a gap can be based at least in part on an area or space associated with the gap. That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below."); and
in response to no suitable gap being found on the first lane (see Arora at least [0050] "...In some examples, a cost can be determined for the trajectory 336 and the cost can be compared to a threshold. Based at least in part on determining that the cost is below a threshold, the trajectory 330 can be used to control the vehicle 300. In some examples, if the cost meets or exceeds the threshold, another trajectory can be compared to the gap(s) identified as described above." and [0082]-[0083] "At operation 510, the planner component 426 can determine a cost associated with the trajectory. In some examples, as described above, the planner component 426 can determine a cost for each trajectory. A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the current lane, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 402 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs. At operation 512, the planner component 426 can determine whether the cost is below a threshold. In at least one example, based at least in part on determining that the cost is below the threshold, the planner component 426 can control the vehicle using the trajectory, as illustrated at operation 514. That is, the planner component 426 can determine steering and/or acceleration commands that can be executed by the system controller(s) and/or drive system(s) 414 to cause the vehicle 402 to perform the lane change operation. In at least one example, based at least in part on determining that the cost meets or exceeds the threshold, the planner component 426 can determine another trajectory for performing the lane change operation, as illustrated at operation 516. That is, based at least in part on determining that the trajectory is associated with too high of cost, a different trajectory can be accessed (e.g., from a plurality of trajectories previous generated) and/or generated. Based at least in part on determining the other trajectory, the process 500 can return to operation 510 to determine a cost associated with the other trajectory."):
searching for a gap currently unsuitable with respect to the dimensions between the road users on the first lane (see Arora at least [0020]-[0022] "At operation 110, a gap finder component associated with vehicle computing device(s) of the vehicle 102, can determine gap(s) in the environment 100. In at least one example, gap(s) can be determined by solving a constraints satisfaction problem. That is, a gap finding problem can be modeled as a constraints satisfaction problem to find gap(s) that the vehicle 102 can move into (e.g., in a target lane) with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the environment 100 and/or otherwise violating a constraint associated with the environment 100. In at least one example, a gap can comprise a portion of a configuration space associated with the vehicle 102 that is exclusive of space(s) associated with constraint(s) (e.g., “constraint space(s)”). A constraint space can be associated with a region of the environment 100 through which the vehicle 102 is unable to travel for some period of time... While a single gap 120 is illustrated in FIG. 1, in some examples, a plurality of gaps can be determined, and each gap can be associated with a cost indicating a quality of the gap. A cost associated with a gap can be based at least in part on an area or space associated with the gap. That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below." and [0084] "In some examples, a plurality of trajectories (e.g., a plurality of potential trajectories) can be validated in view of the gap(s) identified at operation 506 and, for any trajectory that is not associated with a gap in a phase associated with the lane change operation, such a trajectory may be removed from consideration by the planner component 426. However, for each trajectory that is validated, the planner component 426 can determine a cost associated therewith. In some examples, the plurality of potential trajectories can be sorted based on associated costs and a potential trajectory associated with a lowest cost can be selected to control the vehicle 502."), and
executing at least one driving maneuver and/or at least one vehicle function in such a way that an intention to carry out the lane change maneuver by the vehicle into the … gap is indicated at least to the road users delimiting the … gap (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108. The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108. The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108...").
While Arora discloses the detection of all gaps near a vehicle, little focus is directed to gaps below a certain threshold size, thus Arora does not explicitly disclose the following:
…guide the vehicle…to an exit of the road…
…the unsuitable gap…
Geller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…guide the vehicle…to an exit of the road (see Geller at least [0072] "...In another example, if the route that the vehicle 102 is travelling has the vehicle 102 exiting and the vehicle 102 is in the middle lane as the highway exit approaches, the lane assist system 100 may select an open space or area in the exit lane that allows the vehicle 102 to safely exit in time.")…
…the unsuitable gap (see Geller at least [0082] "…Thus, the vehicle 102 is unable to move into the open spaces or areas 516, 518, and so disengages preparation of the vehicle 102. The lane assist system 100 may determine that the adjacent lane 526 is filled with traffic based on traffic condition information included in the navigational map information or based on the surrounding vehicle information, e.g., by determining that the distance between the two vehicle 501, 502 is less than a threshold distance or that the size of the open space or area 514 is less than a threshold amount. If there is traffic in the adjacent lane 526 and/or the size of the open space or area 514 is less than the threshold amount, the lane assist system 100 may not prepare the vehicle 102 to move into the adjacent lane 526.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with information such as an exit location and unsuitable gap detection such as taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of predicting and preparing vehicle maneuvers before they occur (see Geller at least [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, wherein an adaptation of the longitudinal speed, a reduction of the lateral distance of the vehicle to the first lane, and/or an activation of direction indicators is executed as the at least one driving maneuver and/or as the at least one vehicle function (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108. The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108. The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108..." and [0061] "...By way of example and not limitation, the exterior emitters in this example include light emitters (e.g., indicator lights, signs, light arrays, etc.) to visually communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., one or more audio emitters (e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc.) to audibly communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., etc...").
Regarding claim 13, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 12, wherein in a first escalation level, the longitudinal speed of the vehicle is adapted (see Arora at least [0023] "...The preparation phase can correspond to a period of time during which the vehicle 102 can move longitudinally within the first lane 106 to align itself with a gap in the second lane 108 with no or minimal interaction with object(s) (e.g., the vehicle(s) 114-118) in the second lane 108...") such that the vehicle is located at the level of the unsuitable gap (Geller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with the detection of an unsuitable gap such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 13, wherein, in a second escalation level, the lateral distance is reduced such that the vehicle approaches a roadway marking between the first lane and the second lane and/or that the direction indicators are activated on a side of the vehicle facing toward the first lane (see Arora at least [0023] "...The merge phase can correspond to a period of time when the vehicle 102 is aligned with the gap in the second lane 108 and preparing to execute a lateral motion to merge into the gap with no or minimal interaction with object(s) in the first lane 106 and/or the second lane 108..." and [0061] "...By way of example and not limitation, the exterior emitters in this example include light emitters (e.g., indicator lights, signs, light arrays, etc.) to visually communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., one or more audio emitters (e.g., speakers, speaker arrays, horns, etc.) to audibly communicate with pedestrians, other drivers, other nearby vehicles, etc., etc...").
Regarding claim 15, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 14, wherein in a third escalation level, the lateral distance is adapted such that the roadway marking between the first lane and the second lane is driven over by the vehicle (see Arora at least [0023] "...The target phase can correspond to a period of time after the vehicle 102 has merged into the second lane 108 and is adjusting its velocity for avoiding interaction with object(s) in the second lane 108…").
Regarding claim 16, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, wherein, if the lane change maneuver into the unsuitable (Geller) gap is not possible after passage of a predetermined attempt duration, the longitudinal speed is adapted once again and the at least one driving maneuver and/or the at least one vehicle function is executed at a further unsuitable (Geller) gap (see Arora at least [0085] "In at least one example, the process 500 can be performed at a particular frequency, after a lapse of a period of time, and/or the like. In some examples, the process 500 can be performed for each “tick” of route planning. A “tick” can correspond to a period of time after which a trajectory is re-evaluated and/or updated for controlling the vehicle (e.g., 2 milliseconds (ms), 4 ms, etc.)." and [0098] "...A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the current lane, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 402 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with the detection of an unsuitable gap such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 11, wherein various vehemence levels are specified for the execution of the at least one driving maneuver and/or the at least one vehicle function in dependence on a driving behavior of the user and/or a current traffic situation (see Arora at least [0022] "...That is, a gap associated with a smaller area and/or space can be associated with a higher cost and a gap associated with a larger area and/or space can be associated with a smaller cost. Additional details are provided below.").
Regarding claim 18, Arora in view of Geller teach the method of claim 17, wherein the vehemence levels differ from one another with respect to the executed escalation level and/or a duration passed between the escalation levels and/or the attempt duration (see Arora at least [0042] "...A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory in each of the phases, an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation, an amount of time in the first lane 204, a distance travelled during the lane change operation, a relative distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), etc. In some examples, a sub-cost can be determined for a trajectory for each phase described above and the cost can be determined by each of the sub-costs.").
Regarding claim 19, Arora in view of Geller teach the method according to claim 17, wherein the vehemence levels differ with respect to speed profiles (see Arora at least [0025] ”In at least one example, a cost can be determined for the trajectory 124. A cost can be determined based at least in part on a length of the trajectory 124 in each of the phases (e.g., penalizes a shorter trajectory length), an amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation (e.g., penalizes a larger amount of time associated with performing the lane change operation), an amount of time in the first lane 106 (e.g., penalizes a slow start to a lane change operation), a distance travelled during the lane change operation (e.g., penalizes a shorter distance), a relative distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s) (e.g., penalizes a small distance between the vehicle 200 and other object(s) and/or constraint(s), lack of forward progress, etc.), etc…”), wherein the speed profiles describe a course of the longitudinal speed in dependence on a distance of the vehicle to the exit (see Geller at least [0072] "...In another example, if the route that the vehicle 102 is travelling has the vehicle 102 exiting and the vehicle 102 is in the middle lane as the highway exit approaches, the lane assist system 100 may select an open space or area in the exit lane that allows the vehicle 102 to safely exit in time.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Arora with information such as an exit location such as further taught by Geller with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, Arora in view of Geller teach a driver assistance system for a vehicle, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to carry out a method according to claim 11 (see Arora at least [0051] "FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example system 400 for performing techniques, as described herein…").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US-2022/0227390) teaches a lane change operation in an autonomous vehicle, where vehicle speed is adjusted to perform a lane change. Wang et al. also describes analyzing a gap between vehicles of another lane and waiting until a gap of suitable size is available prior to initiating any commands, or similarly initiating a turn signal to request a larger size gap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663