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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 10/04/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23201517 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 04/07/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claim 15 is cancelled.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, in light of the amendments, the 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and appear to be directed solely to the instant amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the claims are addressed in the body of the rejections below.
Applicant argues that Kessler’s tracking functions do not teach the claimed “travelling profiles”. Applicants specification states “Each one of the vehicle travelling profile may comprise travelling data containing any one of vehicle position, vehicle speed, destination data, vehicle acceleration, planned activities within the at least one vehicle zone, etc. [0017]”. Kessler as mapped states “vehicles that are on the roadway and operating under a moving position-target control scheme transmit, to other vehicles and/or a system controller of the transportation system, their own location, the position target they are following, the locations of other nearby vehicles, the presence or absence of vehicles on adjacent position targets, and the like. [0051]”. The examiner believes the applicant is taking a narrower view of their claim and fully believes the examiner’s interpretation is fully supported by the specification as shown.
Applicant argues that Kessler does not teach the “estimating” limitation because they do not teach “profile-based possibility estimation”. Paragraph [0016] defines the profiles as “the vehicle travelling profiles comprise travelling data in the form of any one of driving directions of the plurality of vehicles, scheduled routes of the plurality of vehicles, distance between the plurality of vehicles, relative time gaps between the plurality of vehicles, relative speed between the plurality of vehicles, speed differences between the plurality of vehicles, relative acceleration between the plurality of vehicles, planned activities by the plurality of vehicles within the at least one vehicle zone unit, such as loading/unloading events”. Kessler as mapped is using the relative spacing of the vehicles to determine if an adjacent vehicle is capable of merging.
Applicant argues that Kessler does not teach the safety criterion to allow the set of vehicles to travel through the zone together. Kessler teaches multiple safety criteria such as distance, closing speed, and vehicle direction to determine how best to allow the vehicle to safely merge in if able to. Kessler obviously only merges upon satisfying the “safety criterion” as is evidences in paragraph [0045] of Kessler “In order to merge safely, the vehicle 214-5 must select an unoccupied position target to follow (e.g., the position target 218, which is unoccupied and therefore represents an available vehicle position)”.
Applicant argues Kessler does not disclose the vehicle zone as claimed. This part of the limitation is mapped to Li. Applicant argues that Li teaches a mutable node framework which is not a static node as claimed. The applicant points to paragraphs [0006] and [0039] of Li however although Li teaches creating “duplicate nodes” of certain nodes to aid in process collision avoidance situations, each of those nodes point to a specific fixed location which appears to match the definition of “static node” in the instant applications specification.
Applicant argues that Kessler does not teach disclosing “allowing the set of vehicles to travel through the at least one vehicle zone together in the claimed sense”. The claims broadly claim “feeding motion commands to the set of vehicles for realizing their routes through the at least one vehicle zone together”. Kessler uses sensors to determine spacing, speed, and motion direction of vehicles coming together to merge and controls the vehicles when determined safe to do so to be able to merge together and move together.
It appears applicant’s arguments are directed towards the more specific, unclaimed features of the invention that it is trying to safely and efficiently cluster vehicles together to pass through a one-way alternating roadway section in which traffic from both directions are vying to pass through. The applicant is invited to further amend the claims to incorporate some of this subject matter to distinguish the claims from the currently applied art, however as the claims currently stand, the examiner is not persuaded by applicants arguments and the rejections are being maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (US 2021/0294352), herein Kessler in view of Li (US 2022/0163969), herein Li (from IDS).
Regarding claim 1:
Kessler teaches:
A computer system for controlling movements of a plurality of vehicles (The vehicle controller may include computers, processors, memory, circuitry, or any other suitable hardware components, and may be interconnected with other systems of the vehicle to facilitate the operations described herein, as well as other vehicle operations [0096]) in a confined geographical area (vehicle control schemes, as well as techniques for transitioning between various different vehicle control schemes at intersections, merge points, junctions, and the like [0032]), the computer system comprising processing circuitry (processors, and/or other components or systems that help facilitate autonomous operation [0090]) configured to:
define at least one vehicle path within the confined geographical area (fig. 2A, merge area 212; fig. 3C, join junction 320) [by a subset of static nodes, wherein the subset of static nodes] defines a topological representation of the at least one vehicle path (fig. 2, roadway 200), the at least one vehicle path containing at least one vehicle zone (fig. 2A, merge area 212; fig. 3C, join junction 320) with an entrance (fig. 2A, segments 208 and 210; in which a first segment 324 joins a second segment 325 [0058]) and an exit (fig. 2A, section 204; the flow of vehicles from the first and second segments 324, 325 continue along a third segment 322 (moving in direction 327) [0058]), and further being delimited to a single vehicle lane (see at least figs. 2 and 3 showing single lane of traffic post merging.);
obtain real-time (the tracking functions for the roadway may be changed or adjusted in real-time [0069]) vehicle travelling profiles of the plurality of vehicles intended to travel in the at least one vehicle zone (vehicles that are on the roadway and operating under a moving position-target control scheme transmit, to other vehicles and/or a system controller of the transportation system, their own location, the position target they are following, the locations of other nearby vehicles, the presence or absence of vehicles on adjacent position targets, and the like [0051]), the vehicle travelling profiles containing travelling data (A distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may change as the first vehicle and the second vehicle navigate along the section of the roadway. A time interval between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may be maintained above an established minimum value [0004]);
estimate, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles (the vehicle presence detector 206 is positioned upstream of the merge area 212. Vehicle presence information from the vehicle presence detector 206 may thus be used by vehicles attempting to merge at the merge area 212 to identify available vehicle locations. The vehicle presence detector 206 may be or include any suitable systems and/or components that can sense the presence or absence of vehicles at a position on the roadway [0046]), a possibility of having a set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles accessing the at least one vehicle zone and travelling along the single vehicle lane at the same time (the vehicle 214-4 may send information to the vehicle 214-5 indicating the position of the vehicle 214-4 and the absence of a vehicle on the position target 218 [0051]);
determine that the possibility satisfies a safety criterion (During merging, the vehicle 214-5 may use various techniques to ensure a safe merge operation. For example, the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging [0054]), so as to allow the set of vehicles to travel through the at least one vehicle zone together (Once an available vehicle position is identified, the merging vehicle 214-5 may select a tracking function, from a plurality of candidate tracking functions, that is associated with the available vehicle position. For example, as described herein, the available vehicle position may correspond to a position target, and the position target may be defined by or associated with a unique tracking function that defines the position of the position target with respect to time. Accordingly, as described herein, the merging vehicle 214-5 may use information, such as a position where the available vehicle position was detected, and a time at which it was detected, to determine the tracking function that corresponds to the available vehicle position. Once the tracking function is selected (and when it is otherwise safe to do so), the merging vehicle 214-5 may merge onto the first segment 208 of the roadway at the available vehicle position. Once merged, the vehicle 214-5 navigates along the roadway in accordance with the selected tracking function [0052]); and
control movement of the set of vehicles through the at least one vehicle zone together (The operation of merging onto the first section 208 as shown in FIG. 2D may include the vehicle 214-5 initiating a closed-loop position control scheme to cause the vehicle 214-5 to accelerate to the appropriate merging speed and converge on the position target 218 [0053]), in response to determining that the possibility satisfies the safety criterion (During merging, the vehicle 214-5 may use various techniques to ensure a safe merge operation. For example, the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging. The vehicle 214-5 may detect or determine such parameters using on-vehicle sensors (e.g., LIDAR, radar, ultrasonic sensors, optical sensors, cameras, infrared sensors, or the like). [0054]), by feeding motion commands to the set of vehicles for realizing their routes through the at least one vehicle zone together (fig. 2D, path 204 post merge of 214-5; The position targets 326 and 328 may be staggered so that the position targets 326 of the first segment 324 accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325 in the existing gaps between the position targets 326 [0059]).
Kessler does not explicitly teach, however Li teaches:
define at least one vehicle path within the confined geographical area (Every edge connecting the nodes represents a pathway with a certain amount of space that robots can move through. This primary representation of the functional space helps in faster traversal and simplifies the overall methodology. In the graph, the edges also have space constraints indicating the width or narrowness of the paths. The assumption is if the robot is too big or large to move through the pathway, then the planning process may consider that the robot cannot move through it. Alternatively, in the planning stage, if a path is big enough for multiple robots to pass through it simultaneously, the information enables the system to not consider the scenario as a collision. [0039]) by a subset of static nodes (The graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space [0039]), wherein the subset of static nodes defines a topological representation of the at least one vehicle path (The graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space. Every edge connecting the nodes represents a pathway with a certain amount of space that robots can move through [0039]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kessler to include the teachings as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. Both referencing are in the same field of endeavor of optimizing routing of vehicles. Li teaches the benefit of “he technologies described herein are related to a robust cloud platform that optimizes route plans. In an exemplary embodiment, the platform utilizes multiple data structures to represent the operating environment, generates route plans, and allows optimized movement of the vehicles from one node to another node [Li, 0006]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein estimate, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles (the vehicle presence detector 206 is positioned upstream of the merge area 212. Vehicle presence information from the vehicle presence detector 206 may thus be used by vehicles attempting to merge at the merge area 212 to identify available vehicle locations. The vehicle presence detector 206 may be or include any suitable systems and/or components that can sense the presence or absence of vehicles at a position on the roadway [0046]), a possibility of having a set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles accessing the at least one vehicle zone and travelling along the single vehicle lane at the same time (the vehicle 214-4 may send information to the vehicle 214-5 indicating the position of the vehicle 214-4 and the absence of a vehicle on the position target 218 [0051]), further comprises to identify one or more similarities between the vehicle travelling profiles of the set of vehicles (This condition is illustrated in FIG. 3C by the first segment 324 having position targets 326 with sufficient spacing to accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325. In this way, the vehicle flows of the first and second segments can merge together without backups or slowdowns. Further, the speed of the vehicles on the first and second segments 324, 325 may remain the same after the vehicle flows are joined and they are navigating along the third segment 322 [0058]), and determine that the possibility satisfies a safety criterion further comprises to determine that the one or more similarities satisfies the safety criterion (Each vehicle that is on that roadway segment may be assigned to or otherwise associated with a different moving position-target, and the moving position-targets may be predetermined (e.g., by a function that relates position along the roadway with time) so that the vehicles maintain a safe distance from one another. In this way, the locations of individual vehicles on the roadway and the overall flow of vehicles along the roadway segment may be tightly controlled, thereby reducing the risk of traffic jams, collisions, or the like [0031]).
Regarding claim 3:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein estimate, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles(the vehicle presence detector 206 is positioned upstream of the merge area 212. Vehicle presence information from the vehicle presence detector 206 may thus be used by vehicles attempting to merge at the merge area 212 to identify available vehicle locations. The vehicle presence detector 206 may be or include any suitable systems and/or components that can sense the presence or absence of vehicles at a position on the roadway [0046]), a possibility of having a set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles accessing the at least one vehicle zone and travelling along the single vehicle lane at the same time (the vehicle 214-4 may send information to the vehicle 214-5 indicating the position of the vehicle 214-4 and the absence of a vehicle on the position target 218 [0051]), further comprises to estimate whether a vehicle among the set of vehicles can travel between the entrance and exit of the vehicle zone without colliding with another vehicle among the plurality of vehicles planning to travel between the entrance and exit of the vehicle zone (The position targets 326 and 328 may be staggered so that the position targets 326 of the first segment 324 accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325 in the existing gaps between the position targets 326. Because the vehicle control schemes of all segments of the join junction 320 are predetermined, including the positions and speeds of the position targets 326, 328, and 329, continuous, uninterrupted merging of the vehicle flows may be maintained continuously (and without requiring the vehicles to significantly slow down or speed up to accomplish the merge) [0059]).
Regarding claim 4:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles, that the possibility dissatisfies the safety criterion (some segments may require the ability to handle non-steady state traffic flows. Examples may include on-ramps, where vehicles may have to wait for an available vehicle position and boarding areas where the flow of vehicles may be unpredictable and/or driven by user demands [0074]).
Regarding claim 5:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein, if the possibility dissatisfies the safety criterion, the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate if one or more vehicle travelling profiles can be adjusted to satisfy the safety criterion (When a vehicle is traveling along a roadway segment that utilizes this type of control scheme, the vehicle may be assigned to or otherwise associated with a particular moving position-target, and the vehicle may adjust its speed and/or heading to minimize the error between its actual position and the position of the moving position-target [0031]; the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging. [0054]).
Regarding claim 6:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein, if the possibility satisfies the safety criterion (The platooning scheme may also establish or define a maximum platoon size. For example, platoons may be limited to a maximum of ten vehicles, six vehicles, five vehicles, or any other suitable size. In some cases, the maximum platoon size may vary based on conditions and/or circumstances [0081]), the processing circuitry is further configured to compare the vehicle travelling profiles to identify possibilities for coupling at least two adjacent vehicles to each other to form a vehicle coupled combination (vehicles operating according to the platooning scheme may communicate with one another to determine whether they should join a platoon or form a new platoon. For example, each vehicle may be configured to communicate with a vehicle that is directly ahead on the roadway. The vehicles may include wireless vehicle-to-vehicle communications systems to facilitate such communications, such as optical communications systems, radio-based communications systems, or the like. Vehicle-to-vehicle communications may be direct from one vehicle to another, or messages may be relayed through one or more other servers, computers, controllers, communications systems or providers, or the like [0083]); and
feeding motion commands to the adjacent vehicles for realizing their routes through the at least one vehicle zone together (FIG. 6A illustrates a segment 600 of a roadway with three platoons: a first platoon 602 with one vehicle, a second platoon 604 with three vehicles, and a third platoon 606 with five vehicles. FIG. 6A shows the platoons at a time t.sub.0. As described above, smaller platoons may travel faster than larger platoons to allow the smaller platoons to catch up to and join the larger platoons. [0077]), the feeding motion commands further comprising commands for connecting the adjacent vehicles to form the vehicle coupled combination before entering the at least one vehicle zone (by grouping into larger platoons, more and larger gaps will tend to form along the roadway, providing greater opportunities for other vehicles to merge into the flow of traffic. [0076]).
Regarding claim 7:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein the vehicle travelling profiles comprise travelling data (A distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may change as the first vehicle and the second vehicle navigate along the section of the roadway. A time interval between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may be maintained above an established minimum value [0004]) in the form of any one of driving directions of the plurality of vehicles, scheduled routes of the plurality of vehicles (their next maneuver (e.g., right turn, left turn, planned stop) [0090]), distance between the plurality of vehicles (the distances between itself and other vehicles [0054]; a gap of certain distance or duration between vehicles [0048]), relative time gaps between the plurality of vehicles (a constant time interval between the two vehicles along the roadway [0008]), relative speed between the plurality of vehicles (the speed of the vehicle [0042]), speed differences between the plurality of vehicles (the closing speeds [0054]), relative acceleration between the plurality of vehicles (a change in a speed of a second vehicle that is ahead of the first vehicle, and changing a speed of the first vehicle in response to detecting the change in speed of the second vehicle [0012]), planned activities by the plurality of vehicles within the at least one vehicle zone unit (their next maneuver (e.g., right turn, left turn, planned stop) [0090]).
Regarding claim 8:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Li further teaches:
wherein the vehicle path within the confined geographical area is defined by a subset of static nodes (The graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space [0039]) using a route optimizing algorithms (the system optimizes one or more route plans to provide optimized route plans [abstract]).
Regarding claim 9:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein the safety criterion (During merging, the vehicle 214-5 may use various techniques to ensure a safe merge operation. For example, the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging [0054]) is any one of the following: the set of vehicles travels in the same direction (the number of vehicles in a platoon [0087]), an estimated speed difference between the set of vehicles is within a predetermined speed range (a change in a speed of a second vehicle that is ahead of the first vehicle, and changing a speed of the first vehicle in response to detecting the change in speed of the second vehicle [0012]), an estimated relative speed between the set of vehicles is within a predetermined range (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), an estimated relative acceleration between the vehicles is within a predetermined acceleration range (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.), an estimated relative distance between the set of vehicles is within a predetermined distance range (the first segment 324 having position targets 326 with sufficient spacing to accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325 [0058]), an estimated time gap between the set of vehicles is within a predetermined time period (a certain time interval (e.g., the target vehicle spacing) [0086]), and an estimated time to collision between the set of vehicles is within a predetermined time period ().
Regarding claim 10:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
A vehicle (vehicle control schemes may be executed by the vehicles, by the transportation system controller, by a combination of the vehicles and the transportation system controller, or using any other suitable components, computers, servers, controllers, or combinations thereof [0033]) comprising the computer system of claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Kessler teaches:
A computer-implemented method for controlling movements of a plurality of vehicles (The vehicle controller may include computers, processors, memory, circuitry, or any other suitable hardware components, and may be interconnected with other systems of the vehicle to facilitate the operations described herein, as well as other vehicle operations [0096]) in a confined geographical area (vehicle control schemes, as well as techniques for transitioning between various different vehicle control schemes at intersections, merge points, junctions, and the like [0032]), the computer-implemented method comprising:
defining, by processing circuitry of a computer system, at least one vehicle path within the confined geographical area (fig. 2A, merge area 212; fig. 3C, join junction 320) by [a subset of static nodes, wherein the subset of static nodes] defines a topological representation of the at least one vehicle path (fig. 2, roadway 200), the at least one vehicle path containing at least one vehicle zone (fig. 2A, merge area 212; fig. 3C, join junction 320) with an entrance (fig. 2A, segments 208 and 210; in which a first segment 324 joins a second segment 325 [0058]) and an exit (fig. 2A, section 204; the flow of vehicles from the first and second segments 324, 325 continue along a third segment 322 (moving in direction 327) [0058]), and further being delimited to a single vehicle lane (see at least figs. 2 and 3 showing single lane of traffic post merging.);
obtaining real-time (the tracking functions for the roadway may be changed or adjusted in real-time [0069]) vehicle travelling profiles of the plurality of vehicles intended to travel in the at least one vehicle zone (vehicles that are on the roadway and operating under a moving position-target control scheme transmit, to other vehicles and/or a system controller of the transportation system, their own location, the position target they are following, the locations of other nearby vehicles, the presence or absence of vehicles on adjacent position targets, and the like [0051]), the vehicle travelling profiles containing travelling data (A distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may change as the first vehicle and the second vehicle navigate along the section of the roadway. A time interval between the first vehicle and the second vehicle may be maintained above an established minimum value [0004]);
estimating, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles (the vehicle presence detector 206 is positioned upstream of the merge area 212. Vehicle presence information from the vehicle presence detector 206 may thus be used by vehicles attempting to merge at the merge area 212 to identify available vehicle locations. The vehicle presence detector 206 may be or include any suitable systems and/or components that can sense the presence or absence of vehicles at a position on the roadway [0046]), a possibility of having a set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles accessing the at least one vehicle zone and travelling along the single vehicle lane at the same time (the vehicle 214-4 may send information to the vehicle 214-5 indicating the position of the vehicle 214-4 and the absence of a vehicle on the position target 218 [0051]);
determining that the possibility satisfies a safety criterion (During merging, the vehicle 214-5 may use various techniques to ensure a safe merge operation. For example, the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging [0054]), so as to allow the set of vehicles to travel through the at least one vehicle zone together (Once an available vehicle position is identified, the merging vehicle 214-5 may select a tracking function, from a plurality of candidate tracking functions, that is associated with the available vehicle position. For example, as described herein, the available vehicle position may correspond to a position target, and the position target may be defined by or associated with a unique tracking function that defines the position of the position target with respect to time. Accordingly, as described herein, the merging vehicle 214-5 may use information, such as a position where the available vehicle position was detected, and a time at which it was detected, to determine the tracking function that corresponds to the available vehicle position. Once the tracking function is selected (and when it is otherwise safe to do so), the merging vehicle 214-5 may merge onto the first segment 208 of the roadway at the available vehicle position. Once merged, the vehicle 214-5 navigates along the roadway in accordance with the selected tracking function [0052]); and
control movement of the set of vehicles through the at least one vehicle zone together (The operation of merging onto the first section 208 as shown in FIG. 2D may include the vehicle 214-5 initiating a closed-loop position control scheme to cause the vehicle 214-5 to accelerate to the appropriate merging speed and converge on the position target 218 [0053]), in response to determining that the possibility satisfies the safety criterion (During merging, the vehicle 214-5 may use various techniques to ensure a safe merge operation. For example, the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging. The vehicle 214-5 may detect or determine such parameters using on-vehicle sensors (e.g., LIDAR, radar, ultrasonic sensors, optical sensors, cameras, infrared sensors, or the like). [0054]), by feeding motion commands to the set of vehicles for realizing their routes through the at least one vehicle zone together (The position targets 326 and 328 may be staggered so that the position targets 326 of the first segment 324 accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325 in the existing gaps between the position targets 326 [0059]).
Kessler does not explicitly teach, however Li teaches:
defining at least one vehicle path within the confined geographical area (Every edge connecting the nodes represents a pathway with a certain amount of space that robots can move through. This primary representation of the functional space helps in faster traversal and simplifies the overall methodology. In the graph, the edges also have space constraints indicating the width or narrowness of the paths. The assumption is if the robot is too big or large to move through the pathway, then the planning process may consider that the robot cannot move through it. Alternatively, in the planning stage, if a path is big enough for multiple robots to pass through it simultaneously, the information enables the system to not consider the scenario as a collision. [0039]) by a subset of static nodes (The graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space [0039]), wherein the subset of static nodes defines a topological representation of the at least one vehicle path (The graph includes multiple nodes representing a region of free space. Every edge connecting the nodes represents a pathway with a certain amount of space that robots can move through [0039]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kessler to include the teachings as taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success. Both referencing are in the same field of endeavor of optimizing routing of vehicles. Li teaches the benefit of “he technologies described herein are related to a robust cloud platform that optimizes route plans. In an exemplary embodiment, the platform utilizes multiple data structures to represent the operating environment, generates route plans, and allows optimized movement of the vehicles from one node to another node [Li, 0006]”.
Regarding claim 12:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein estimating a possibility of having a set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles accessing the at least one vehicle zone and travelling along the single vehicle lane at the same time (the vehicle 214-4 may send information to the vehicle 214-5 indicating the position of the vehicle 214-4 and the absence of a vehicle on the position target 218 [0051]), further comprises identifying one or more similarities between the vehicle travelling profiles of the set of vehicles (This condition is illustrated in FIG. 3C by the first segment 324 having position targets 326 with sufficient spacing to accommodate the position targets 328 of the second segment 325. In this way, the vehicle flows of the first and second segments can merge together without backups or slowdowns. Further, the speed of the vehicles on the first and second segments 324, 325 may remain the same after the vehicle flows are joined and they are navigating along the third segment 322 [0058]), and wherein determining that the possibility satisfies a safety criterion further comprises determining that the one or more similarities satisfies the safety criterion (Each vehicle that is on that roadway segment may be assigned to or otherwise associated with a different moving position-target, and the moving position-targets may be predetermined (e.g., by a function that relates position along the roadway with time) so that the vehicles maintain a safe distance from one another. In this way, the locations of individual vehicles on the roadway and the overall flow of vehicles along the roadway segment may be tightly controlled, thereby reducing the risk of traffic jams, collisions, or the like [0031]).
Regarding claim 13:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, based on the obtained real-time vehicle travelling profiles, that the possibility dissatisfies the safety criterion (some segments may require the ability to handle non-steady state traffic flows. Examples may include on-ramps, where vehicles may have to wait for an available vehicle position and boarding areas where the flow of vehicles may be unpredictable and/or driven by user demands [0074]).
Regarding claim 14:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
wherein, if the possibility dissatisfies the safety criterion, the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate if one or more vehicle travelling profiles can be adjusted to satisfy the safety criterion (When a vehicle is traveling along a roadway segment that utilizes this type of control scheme, the vehicle may be assigned to or otherwise associated with a particular moving position-target, and the vehicle may adjust its speed and/or heading to minimize the error between its actual position and the position of the moving position-target [0031]; the vehicle 214-5 may determine the locations of other vehicles, the distances between itself and other vehicles, the closing speeds and/or directions of other nearby vehicles, or the like. The vehicle 214-5 may use such information to accelerate, decelerate, or change heading or position in order to maintain safe clearances, closing speeds, or the like, between itself and other vehicles during merging. [0054]).
Regarding claim 16:
Kessler in view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Kessler further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform (The vehicle controller may include computers, processors, memory, circuitry, or any other suitable hardware components, and may be interconnected with other systems of the vehicle to facilitate the operations described herein, as well as other vehicle operations. [0096]) the method of claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oe (US 2024/0412523) discloses An information providing device and an information providing method are provided. Processing circuitry receives, from a first vehicle, a piece of video data related to the moment the first vehicle passed an occurrence site. The first vehicle captures a piece of video data by a dashboard camera when passing the occurrence site of a traffic event requiring cautious driving. The processing circuitry extracts a piece of image data representing a situation of the occurrence site from the video related to the piece of video data, and transmits the piece of image data to the second vehicle. When the second vehicle reaches a notification location, a display device of the second vehicle displays an image related to the piece of image data in order to issue an alert.
Yamashita (Mean and variance of waiting time and their optimization for alternating traffic control systems - NPL) discloses alternating traffic crossing a narrow one-lane bridge on a two-lane road. Once a car begins to cross the bridge in one direction, arriving cars from the other direction must wait, forming a queue, until all the arrivals in the first direction finish crossing the bridge. Such a situation can often be observed when road-maintenance work is being carried out. Cars are assumed to arrive at the queues according to independent Poisson processes and to cross the bridge in a constant time. In addition, once cars join the queue, each car needs a constant starting delay, before starting to cross the bridge. We model the situation where a signal controls the traffic so that the signal gives a priority to one direction as long as a new car from the same direction arrives in a fixed time. For this model, we get a closed form for the first two moments of the waiting time of cars arriving at the bridge, and then numerically obtain Pareto optimal solutions of holding times to minimize the mean waiting time and its standard deviation.
Ebben (Dynamic one-way traffic control in automated transportation systems - NPL) discloses underground freight transportation using Automated Guided Vehicles, single lanes for traffic in two directions are constructed to reduce infrastructure investment. Intelligent control rules are required to manage vehicle flows such, that collision is avoided and waiting times are minimized. In contrast to standard traffic control at intersections, these control rules should take into account significant driving times along the single lane (in our application up to 8 min).Whereas periodic control rules are often applied in traffic theory, we focus on adaptive rules such as look-ahead heuristics and dynamic programming algorithms. Numerical experiments show that our control rules reduce waiting times by 10–25% compared to a straightforward periodic rule. Dynamic programming yields the best results in terms of mean waiting times.
Suzuki (Optimization for dynamic traffic control in one side alternating traffic segment by simulators - NPL) discloses In order to realize an efficient traffic control method for alternating one-way traffic road sections, in order to reproduce the eyes and brain of a traffic control officer who grasps information on all passing vehicles, the surrounding traffic conditions are captured using a camera and image processing. It is required to develop a system that grasps and dynamically controls traffic lights. In this research, we reproduce the concept of traffic control by traffic controllers and propose a method to control signals using the surrounding traffic conditions. For this reason, the total stop time of stopped vehicles and the distance from the green light of passing vehicles to the leading vehicle are compared to set a criterion for determining whether to switch signals. It was optimized using a simulator and machine learning to minimize the average stop time of all passing vehicles. As a result, it was suggested that using the optimized switching decision criteria could shorten the average stopping time compared to conventional traffic signals for construction work.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights