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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim for priority to Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2024-0057489 filed under 35 U.S.C. 119 and receipt of the priority document filed on 04/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS)(s) submitted on 10/04/2024 has/have been received, considered, and is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: (a) it does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention or (b) or meets a three-prong test for determining that: (1) the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, (2) without integration into a practical application and (3) does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are directed toward a system and computer. Therefore, it can be seen that claim(s) 1 and 11 falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claim clearly does not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
With regard to the first prong, does the claim recite a judicial exception, the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
(a) Mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity - fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Applicant's claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are directed toward the abstract idea of receiving, determining and/or obtaining map data, comparing and/or matching the map data, and determining an existence based on the comparing and/or matching of the map data, which comprises mathematical concepts, to data and deriving a result based on the application. Thus, it can be seen that the claim is/are directed towards an abstract idea.
With regard to the second prong, whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
It is clear that Applicant's claim(s) do/does not comprise any of the above additional elements that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. There is no improvement in the functioning of a computer. Nor are the limitations implemented in particular machine or manufacture. There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. There are no additional elements that apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim(s) 1 and 11 recite(s) one additional element: a computer comprising at least one processor. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Since the abstract idea in Applicant's claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are implemented on a computer and there are no further limitations or structural elements that go beyond the computer, it can clearly be seen that the abstract idea of receiving, determining and/or obtaining map data, comparing and/or matching the map data, and determining an existence based on the comparing and/or matching of the map data, which comprises mathematical concepts, to data and deriving a result based on the application is merely implemented on a computer. Thus there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to the third prong, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the preguideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not wellunderstood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Applicant's claim(s) do/does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The use of one or more computers to implement mathematical operations is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Thus, since claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) not integrated into a practical application and (c) do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea, they are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 is/are also rejected as depending on claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US. 20250251244 A1 to Niewiadomski.
Regarding claim 1, Niewiadomski discloses:
A method for extracting information comprising:
receiving precision map information (Niewiadomski discloses ([0239] (server(s) 978 may receive, over the network(s) 990 and from the vehicles, image data representative of images showing unexpected or changed road conditions, such as recently commenced road-work…server(s) 978 may transmit, over the network(s) 990 and to the vehicles, neural networks 992, updated neural networks 992, and/or map information 994, including information regarding traffic and road conditions…updates to the map information 994 may include updates for the HD map 922, such as information regarding construction sites, potholes, detours, flooding, and/or other obstructions…neural networks 992, the updated neural networks 992, and/or the map information 994 may have resulted from new training and/or experiences represented in data received from any number of vehicles in the environment, and/or based on training performed at a datacenter))); and
extracting geometry information associated with each lane in a preset section using the precision map information, and determining an existence of a pocket lane using change information of the geometry information (Niewiadomski discloses road-graph generator 106 to then put into lane-road matching manager to generate a lane graph of the existing lane network within a roadway ([0041] (road-graph generator 106 may provide road-graph data 108 to the lane-road matching manager 118…lane-road matching component 118 may use such road-graph data to perform lane-road matching); [0042] (lane-road matching may be performed by lane-road matching manager 118 using lane-graph data 116…a lane-graph generator 114 may generate a lane-graph, and data associated therewith may be input into the lane-road matching manager 118 to perform lane-road matching…lane-graph, or a perception lane-graph, may be a directed graph that represents a lane network); [0043] (lane-graph generator 114 may be or include a perception component or module that generates a lane-graph in real-time based on sensor data 112…streamed from a sensor(s) 110…or other component); [0044] (lane-graph generator 114 may obtain and use sensor data 112…sensor data 112 may be pre-processed such that the data is in a format that may be accepted and processed…sensor data 112 may be obtained from any number and any type of sensor(s) 110…may be used to generate sensor data 112 that represents perceptions in the 3D environment in association with an ego-machine(s) as well as objects in the 3D environment around the ego-machine(s)); [0076] (match initiator 240 may identify one or more root lanes and/or root roads to analyze for lane-road matching…match initiator 240 analyzes the input data 205, such as the lane-graph data and/or road-graph data, to identify one or more root lanes and/or root roads in association therewith…a lane may be identified as a root lane when there exists a position along the geometry of the lane that is within a predetermined distance from the location of the ego-machine…a root lane, a root lane location may also be identified…initiating a lane-road matching using a root lane(s) limits a lane-road matching(s) and/or lane-road mapping to a lane(s) reachable from one or more root lanes))).
Regarding claim 11, Niewiadomski discloses a device for extracting information comprising:
a receiver for receiving precision map information (in claim 1, e.g. Niewiadomski); and
a determiner configured to extract geometry information associated with each lane in a preset section using the precision map information, and determine an existence of a pocket lane using change information of the geometry information (in claim 1, e.g. Niewiadomski).
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 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) 2-3, 5, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20250251244 A1 to Niewiadomski in view of U.S. 20110184622 A1 to Yamada et al. (Yamada).
Regarding claim 2, Niewiadomski discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the precision map information includes at least one of the geometry information based on a driving direction of a vehicle, display information allocated to each lane, width information of each lane, and coordinate information for the geometry information (Niewiadomski discloses lane-graph generator 114 utilizing obtained sensor data 112 to generate lane-graph(s) that represent the lane network within a roadway system ([0045] (In obtaining sensor data 112, the lane-graph generator 114 may use such data to generate a lane-graph…a lane-graph may be a directed graph that represents a lane network…an edge in the graph may represent a sequence of one or more sections of lanes of one or more linked road sections…the direction of an edge may correspond to the direction of travel along the lane sections represented by the edge); [0081] (match manager 242 is…configured to perform lane-road matching…lane-road matching identifies a match of a lane and a road, or portions thereof…identifying a lane section(s) that matches a road section(s) enables enhanced performance of various autonomous vehicle functionalities, such as lane-level instructions…, annotation of lanes with road-level attributes from the road-graph); [0083] (One example of a match condition includes a lane being within a distance threshold to a road…when a lane is within a predetermined distance to a road, the lane may be considered to match the road…a distance threshold…may be based on a default setting, a preset setting, or user-selected setting). [0142] (One or more of the controller(s) 936 may receive inputs…from an instrument cluster 932 of the vehicle 900 and provide outputs…via a human-machine interface (HMI) display 934…the outputs…include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data…, location data…, direction, location of other vehicles…information about objects and status of objects as perceived by the controller(s) 936,…HMI display 934 may display information about the presence of one or more objects, and/or information about driving maneuvers))).
However, Niewiadomski does not appear to further expressly disclose:
a specific number of the preset sections based on a driving direction of a vehicle.
Yamada, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses:
a specific number of the preset sections based on a driving direction of a vehicle (Yamada discloses a number of preset sections of a map based on the number of travels on each of the preset sections (see Figs. 6-9; [0078] (the high-probability road section is extracted as a series of road sections that have the number of travels above a certain threshold…the numbers in FIG. 6 show the number of travels along the indicated sections that have been traveled at least 10 times); [0086] (the road section having the number of travels greater than adjacent road sections by a preset number or more is identified as the road section that is frequently traveled at the end of the travel…is chosen as an "end," in the same manner as the pattern 1); [0088] (pattern 3 chooses, as an "end," a certain road section when (a) adjacent road sections of the certain road section have the number of travels less than a preset standard number, and (b) the number of travels of a certain road section is greater than half the number of travels of each of the previous road sections,…when the preset standard number is 10, the number of travels in an adjacent road section B4 is 5…and the number of travels in a road section B3 is more than half the number of travels in each of road sections B1, B2 (i.e., 60, 50), which is previous to the road section B3, the road section B3 is chosen as an "end); [0093] (when…a section C1 and a series of sections C21 to C23 running in parallel, are included in the extracted series of sections T1-J1-J2-J3-T3, a series of sections including a more frequently traveled section C1 is prioritized than the series of sections C21 to C23…therefore, the high-probability road section series is identified as T1-J1-C1-J2-J3-T3))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Niewiadomski to incorporate the vehicle drive control apparatus of Yamada to include a preset number of sections of a precision map(s) based on the number of vehicle trips within said section(s) of the precision map(s) driving the vehicle to be able to determine a high probability road section for the vehicle to travel down, with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niewiadomski and Yamada for the express benefit of including preset sections of the precision map to help determine the highest probability route for the vehicle to travel based on determining the number of travels and environment(s) along previous routes, as explained in Yamada [0078], [0088] and [0093].
Regarding claim 3, Niewiadomski discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the preset section is included in the precision map information, and is set to a same distance or a differential distance depending on a proximity to a vehicle (Niewiadomski discloses a preset lane section within a distance threshold to the road and to the vehicle ([0024] (At a high level, embodiments described herein are directed to matching a lane to a road…or portions thereof, and generating a lane-road mapping representing the matching…a lane may be identified as matching a road, or portions thereof, when certain match conditions specifying geometric similarity are satisfied…match conditions indicating a match of a lane to a road, or portions thereof, may include the lane being within a distance threshold of the road and the lane being within a direction threshold of the road…a match score may be generated to indicate an extent of such geometric similarity…the match score may be used to select a particular road to map to the lane…in this way, a particular lane matching a road, or portions thereof, in association with a greatest match score may be selected for a lane-road mapping…lane-road mapping may be represented…using a lane section identifier(s) and a road section identifier(s) that correspond with a location(s) in which the lane is determined to match a road); [0083] (One example of a match condition includes a lane being within a distance threshold to a road…when a lane is within a predetermined distance to a road, the lane may be considered to match the road…a distance threshold may be established…based on a default setting, a preset setting, or user-selected setting…a distance threshold may be represented in…a particular metric…to specify a distance to use a threshold for determining a match…a distance threshold is large enough to account for differences in the locations, orientations, and granularity between geometries of the lane-graph and road-graph))).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Niewiadomski and Yamada discloses the system of claim 1-2 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1-2 above incorporated herein by reference.
Yamada further discloses wherein
the determining includes calculating the number of the geometry information for each preset section in a preset order (in claim 2, e.g. Yamada), and
determining the change information based on a change in the number of the geometry information (Yamada discloses different prioritized routes based on changed information regarding travel distance and probability of travel through a section(s), area, or exceeding threshold values (see Fig. 4, 8 & 9; [0096] (in S206…the series of road sections extracted in S202 for each of the travel directions is divided so that the series of sections has the road sections chosen in S204 as its end...the series of road sections is divided so that each of the road sections A2, C21, C23, C41 becomes an "end" of the series of sections…the series of road sections extracted in S202 for each of the travel directions is divided into four series of road sections,…T1-T2, sections T1-J1-C1-J2-J3-T3, sections J1-C21-C22-C23-J2, and sections J3-T4); [0097] (for each branch of each of branch points on the extracted series of road sections, travel probability is calculated, and a road section having a less-than-threshold travel probability is considered as "below-standard" and is divided…when a threshold travel probability is set as 70%, both of the section C1 (traveled 15 times) and section C21 (traveled 10 times) are considered as "below-standard," because travel probability for section C1 from the branch point J1 is 15/30 (50%), and travel probability for sections C21 from the branch point J1 is 10/30 (33%),…the number of travels of a section C5 is counted as 30 times…therefore, the previous road section C5 before the branch point J1 is set as an "end," and the series of road sections T1-J1-C1-J2-J3-T3 is divided at the branch point J1))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1-2, above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Niewiadomski and Yamada discloses the device of claim 11 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1-2 and 11 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the precision map information includes at least one of the geometry information for a specific number of the preset sections based on a driving direction of a vehicle, display information allocated to each lane, width information of each lane, and coordinate information for the geometry information (in claim 2, e.g. Niewiadomski & Yamada).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1-2 & 11 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 13, Niewiadomski and Yamada discloses the device of claim 11 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 3 and 11 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the preset section is included in the precision map information, and is set to a same distance or a differential distance depending on a proximity to a vehicle (in claim 3, e.g. Niewiadomski).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Niewiadomski and Yamada discloses the device of claim 11 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 5 and 11 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner calculates the number of the geometry information for each preset section in a preset order, and determines the change information based on a change in the number of the geometry information (in claim 5, e.g. Yamada).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 5 & 11 above incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20250251244 A1 to Niewiadomski in view of U.S. 20130328924 A1 to Arikan et al. (Arikan).
Regarding claim 4, Niewiadomski discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Niewiadomski does not appear to further expressly disclose:
wherein the determining includes extracting the geometry information by a line connecting a center coordinate values of each lane, and extracting one geometry information for each lane to determine the change information.
Arikan, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses:
wherein the determining includes extracting the geometry information by a line connecting a center coordinate values of each lane, and extracting one geometry information for each lane to determine the change information (Arikan discloses a centerline connecting the vertices of road segments so prevent overlapping road geometries in connecting the road segment sections within a map (see Figs. 8-9; [0150] (the road segment includes a segment ID…geometry information, and attribute information…geometry information…defines the path and other geometric information about a road segment…geometry information includes centerline path data…start and end junction information, parameters to indicate the width and offset with respect to the centerline, and functionality enabling evaluation of the sides of the road at any point along the road segment…this…function…utilizes the centerline, offset, and width information to calculate the location of the sides of the road); [0155] (the process 700 performs (at 715) preprocessing on the road graph to align road segments at junctions…for each junction, some embodiments calculate an average position of the segment path ends, and assign this position to the junction for its location…the mapping service processing modifies the road segment path data for each of the segments that meet at the junction so that the centerlines all end at the calculated average position); [0156] (Each of the ending vertices of the centerlines has a pair of coordinate values); [0163] (the road structure contains functionality to evaluate the road centerline and the sides of the road at any point along the road…centerline functionality exists as a function of the road class that refers to the centerline information of the constituent segments…the side of road functionality also exists as a function of the road class, that uses the side of road function from the road segment objects contained by the road object); [0176] (geometry generation process 1500 generates…an initial polygon representation of the road segments in the road graph…some embodiments expand the piecewise linear centerline representation…into a polygon that follows the path of the road, having the width specified by its road segment data structure))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Niewiadomski to incorporate the mapping system of Arikan to include center coordinates that create a centerline within the road section(s) of a road map that are connected in a way that prevents the overlap of geometry data for the lane and road sections of the precision map, with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niewiadomski and Arikan for the express benefit of including a centerline to connect map sections and prevent overlap geometry data for the road and/or lane sections that are mated together, as explained in Arikan [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0163] and [0176].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Niewiadomski and Arikan discloses the device of claim 11 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 4 and 11 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner extracts the geometry information by a line connecting a center coordinate values of the each lane, and extracts one geometry information for each lane to determine the change information (in claim 4, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1,4 & 11 above incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US. 20250251244 A1 to Niewiadomski in view of U.S. 20110184622 A1 to Yamada, in further view of U.S. 20130328924 A1 to Arikan, as applied to the claims above, in further view of U.S. 11416943 B2 to Shalev-Shwartz et al. (Shalev-Shwartz).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada and Arikan discloses the method of claim 5 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 5 above incorporated herein by reference.
However, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada and Arikan does not appear to further expressly disclose wherein the preset order is set according to first direction set in the order from a first section including a position of a host vehicle to a N-th section located farthest from the host vehicle, and a second direction set in the order from the N-th section to the first section,
wherein N is a natural number greater than or equal to 2.
Shalev-Shwartz, in the same field of endeavor, further discloses wherein the preset order is set according to first direction set in the order from a first section including a position of a host vehicle to a N-th section located farthest from the host vehicle, and a second direction set in the order from the N-th section to the first section (Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the direction from a section to the host vehicle can be in any direction and includes sections or lanes located furthest from the host vehicle on a multi-lane road and wherein the host vehicle is to avoid collision with any of the other plurality of vehicles (¶ (156) (processing unit 110 may analyze the geometry of a junction…based on any combination of: (i) the number of lanes detected on either side of vehicle 200…and (iii) descriptions of the junction extracted from map data…processing unit 110 may determine a correspondence between the traffic lights…at step 560 and the lanes appearing near vehicle 200); ¶ (250) (Hard constraints…may be employed requiring that a vehicle maintain a longitudinal distance to other vehicles of at least one meter and a lateral distance from other vehicles of at least 0.5 meters…the host vehicle will avoid maintaining a collision course with one or more other vehicles...where the two trajectories intersect…each car will arrive at point when a first part of the car passes the intersection point, and a certain amount of time will be required before the last part of the car passes through the intersection point…this amount of time separates the arrival time from the leaving time…thus, a hard constraint may be implemented…to ensure that vehicle 1 and vehicle 2 do not miss one another by a minimal amount, an added margin of safety may be obtained by including a buffer time into the constraint); ¶ (260) (distance information may be provided by onboard radar and/or lidar systems…may be derived from analysis of one or more images captured from the environment of the host vehicle...velocities and accelerations may be determined…by observing changes in scale between objects from image to image over known time intervals…this analysis may indicate the direction of movement toward or away from the host vehicle along with how fast the object is pulling away from or coming toward the host vehicle))),
wherein N is a natural number greater than or equal to 2 (Shalev-Shwartz discloses where N is a number of sections or lanes greater than or equal to two (see Figs. 9-11; ¶ (208) (options graph 901 represents an options graph for a two-lane highway, including with merging lanes (meaning that at some points, a third lane is merged into either the right or the left lane of the highway)…the root node 903 first decides if the host vehicle is in a plain road scenario or approaching a merge scenario); ¶ (211) (Returning to merge node 913, when the host vehicle approaches a merge, it has several options that may depend on a particular situation…host vehicle 1105 is traveling along a two-lane road with no other target vehicles detected, either in the primary lanes of the two-lane road or in the merge lane 1111…driving policy module 803, upon reaching merge node 913, may select stay node 909…that is, staying within its current lane); ¶ (233) (in a double merge, vehicles approach the merge area 1130 from both left and right sides…and, from each side, a vehicle…can decide whether to merge into lanes on the other side of merge area 1130); ¶ (245) (This may enable determination of the desired lateral position in a natural way…if the host vehicle changes lanes from lane 2 to lane 3, the “go” node may set the desired lateral position to 3, the “stay” node may set the desired lateral position to 2, and the “push” node may set the desired lateral position to 2.5…the host vehicle may decide whether to maintain the “same” speed…, “accelerate”…, or “decelerate”…next, the host vehicle may enter a “chain like” structure 1154 that goes over the other vehicles and sets their semantic meaning to a value in the set {g, t, o}…this process may set the desires relative to the other vehicles))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of the system of Niewiadomski, Yamada and Arikan to incorporate the accident liability tracking system of Shalev-Shwartz to include preset position(s) for vehicles within lanes of a road in relation to the host vehicle where at any point along a path in a longitudinal or latitudinal direction in sequence, with predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz for the express benefit of including presetting set sections of road so that at least one follow vehicle in a sequence of follow vehicles is in a position farthest from the host vehicle in a first or second direction and wherein there exists at least two or more lanes, as explained in Shalev-Shwartz ¶ (155), ¶ (208), ¶ (211), ¶ (233), ¶ (245), ¶ (250) and ¶ (260).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the method of claim 6 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 5-6 above incorporated herein by reference.
Arikan further discloses:
wherein the determining include determining that the pocket lane exists if the change information determined according to at least one of the first direction and the second direction is determined to be an increase in the number of the geometry information (Arikan discloses road geometry generator 610 growing road geometry data out from the road centerline in either direction and land cover geometry generator 615 growing geometry data from land cover data 630 and road segment data 625 ([0140] (road geometry generator 610 generates geometries for the roads…based on the road graph…the road geometry generator 610 grows road geometries out from the road centerlines…then performs various operations to refine the geometries…road geometry generator 610 smoothes transitions between road segments with different numbers of lanes, creates more realistic rounded corners at intersections, smoothes road merges to remove excess road pieces and gaps between roads, and removes overlap between separate roads that do not intersect); [0141] (land cover geometry generator 615 uses both the land cover data 630 and road segment data 625…to create the geometries…for the land cover …land cover geometry generator 615 uses the road segment data to fill in the land cover geometry and ensure that gaps are not left between the land cover and the roads…some embodiments grow the land cover geometries outside of their marked boundaries towards the roads, stopping the geometries at road centerline locations); [0349] (If the two paths match, the process merges (at 5460) the paths into a single branch of the newly defined intersection))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1 and 5-6 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the method of claim 7 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determining includes determining a section within a preset length of a lane associated with the increased geometry information in the preset section as the pocket lane (in claim 7, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the method of claim 7 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference.
Arikan further discloses,
wherein the determining includes calculating a distance between the geometric information, and determining an area where a distance calculated using the increased geometric information is less than or equal to a threshold value as a tapering area (Arikan discloses determining a tapering area where the distance is calculated to be less than or equal to a threshold value (see Fig. 27; [0182] (some embodiments automatically taper the lane expansion…in the third stage 1630...some embodiments identify a point along the edge of the narrower segment geometry…and taper from this point to the start of the edge of the wider segment…some embodiments use a fixed distance to identify the point (e.g., 25 meters, 50 meters, etc.)…the taper may be a straight line…or a curve); [0206] (FIG. 27 illustrates a tapering operation performed to smooth a corner between road segment geometries in situations that fit characteristics of freeway on-ramps in some embodiments, over three stages 2710-2730…a first segment 2705 continues straight into a third segment 2725 at a junction, with a second segment 2715 entering the junction at a shallow angle relative to the first segment 2705…the first and third segments are a connected road, wider than the second segment, and the angle between the first and second segments is less than a threshold angle (e.g., 30.degree))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the method of claim 7 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference,
Arikan further discloses:
wherein the determining includes determining a tapering area based on an angle change of the increased geometry information (Arikan discloses determining a tapering area based on an angle difference between sections and a threshold angle ([0191] (FIG. 20 illustrates a tapering operation performed to smooth a corner between road segment geometries when the angle between the segments is greater than a first threshold angle (e.g., 170.degree.), over three stages 2010-2030…some embodiments automatically taper the side of one of the roads to meet the side of the other road); [0193] (some embodiments automatically taper the side of the narrower road segment to the side of the wider road segment, as shown by the modified geometry 2040 in the third stage 2030…to perform the tapering operation, some embodiments fix a point along the side of the narrower segment geometry and taper from this point to the start of the side of the wider geometry…some embodiments use a fixed distance to identify the point (e.g., 25 meters, 50 meters, etc.)…the taper may be a straight line…or a curve); [0195] (FIG. 22 illustrates a projection operation performed to smooth a corner between road segment geometries when the angle between the segments is less than a first threshold angle and greater than a second threshold angle…over three stages 2210-2230))).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1 and 5-7 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the device of claim 15 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 15 above incorporated herein by reference, wherein the preset order is set according to a first direction set in the order from a first section including a position of a host vehicle to a N-th section located farthest from the host vehicle and a second direction set in the order from the N-th section to the first section (in claim 6, e.g. Shalev-Shwartz),
wherein N is a natural number greater than or equal to 2 (in claim 6, e.g. Shalev-Shwartz).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 5-6 & 15 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the device of claim 16 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 16 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner determines that the pocket lane exists if the change information determined according to at least one of the first direction and the second direction is determined to be an increase in the number of the geometry information (in claim 7, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 6-7 and 16 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the device of claim 17 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner determines a section within a preset length of a lane associated with the increased geometry information in the preset section as the pocket lane (in claim 8, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 6-8 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the device of claim 17 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner calculates a distance between the geometric information, and determines an area where a distance calculated using the increased geometric information is less than or equal to a threshold value as a tapering area (in claim 9, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 6-9 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Niewiadomski, Yamada, Arikan and Shalev-Shwartz discloses the device of claim 17 in for example the obviousness to combine in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim(s) 1, 6-10 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference,
wherein the determiner determines a tapering area based on an angle change of the increased geometry information (in claim 10, e.g. Arikan).
It would have been obvious to combine for the reasons set forth in the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 1, 6-10 and 17 above incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure as teaching the state of the art of method(s) and device(s) for extracting information, at the time of filing. For example:
US 20230317347 A1 to Hoen; Thomas teaches, inter alia TAPERED MULTIPATH INDUCTORS in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“In an embodiment, an integrated circuit die includes a semiconductor substrate, patterned metal layers compiled over the semiconductor substrate, and a tapered multipath inductor formed in the patterned metal layers. The tapered multipath inductor includes, in turn, an inductor input terminal, an inductor output terminal, and N number of parallel inductor tracks electrically coupled between the inductor input terminal and the inductor output terminal. The parallel inductor tracks wind or wrap around an inductor centerline to define a plurality of multipath inductor windings including an innermost winding and an outermost winding. The parallel inductor tracks further vary in track width when progressing from the outermost winding to the innermost winding of the plurality of multipath inductor windings.”
PNG
media_image1.png
469
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US 12377879 B2 to Jha; Satish teaches, inter alia
Maneuver Coordination Service In Vehicular Networks in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Maneuver Coordination Services (MCS) may be used in various implementations of vehicular networks. Emergency Group Maneuver Coordination (EGMC) may be used for detected unexpected safety-critical situations (USCS) on the road. EGMC provides cooperative maneuver coordination among a group of vehicles to ensure safer collective actions in the case of USCS. An MCS and EGMC may utilize a Maneuver Coordination Message (MCM) based on procedures for the Generation and Transmission of MCM with reduced communication overhead.”
PNG
media_image3.png
436
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
489
735
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L PINKERTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9820. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00-4:00.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. 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.
/ROBERT L PINKERTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665