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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 12-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khasis (US 2017/0262790)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Christensen (US 10,403,133)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Munoz (US 2021/0110323).
Claim 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Scofield (US 2014/0278032).
Priority
The priority date for this application is 11/30/2023.
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that the independent claims should not be considered to represent an abstract idea and therefore should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, the applicant argues that the human mind is not equipped to perform the steps recited in the claim and therefore the human mind cannot be said to be able to practically perform the steps resulting in a claim that does not represent an abstract idea or other judicial exception. This argument is persuasive as the independent claims contain a limitation analogous to, “sending, by the one or more processors, a signal to one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles to adjust a cost of traversing the road segment in order to increase a likelihood of the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles avoiding the road segment” this limitation represents more than insignificant post solution activity as the signals that are sent by the system exercise direct control over the movements of a vehicle by affecting the cost of traversing segments, which in the case of autonomous vehicles are the control mechanism that exerts express control of the vehicles themselves. Therefore the currently rendered rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that Khasis does not disclose the features of the independent claims. Specifically, the applicant argues that Khasis does not disclose determining a cluster of autonomous vehicles occurring at a road segment and does not disclose a specific cost adjustment intended to cause vehicles to avoid road segments with identified clusters. This argument is not persuasive as Khasis does disclose increasing cost for road segments upon which congestion is predicted to exist (Paragraph [0071] discloses minimizing cost as a means of optimizing a route meaning that congestion along a segment increases cost). The argument that congestion does not represent clusters of autonomous vehicles is not persuasive as any cluster of autonomous vehicles would constitute a traffic congestion event. In Paragraph [0089], Khasis discloses autonomous vehicles being part of a fleet communicating specifically with each other in order to optimize routes, which as previously stated involves increasing the cost of road segments in which congestion is likely, in order to avoid congestion. The fact that the autonomous vehicles communicate together in order to “make decisions about the optimized route” (Paragraph [0089]) clearly implies that the autonomous vehicles are increasing the cost of road segments in order to avoid clusters of the autonomous vehicles via cooperation. Therefore it is clear that Khasis is disclosing a system in which costs are minimized in order to minimize the time of a route which translates to increasing the cost of road segments that extend the time of a route and in which autonomous vehicles are cooperating in said cost optimization in order to avoid congestion amongst the autonomous vehicles along certain road segments by increasing the cost of road segments that are predicted to have congestion among said autonomous vehicles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 12-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khasis (US 2017/0262790).
As per Claim 1:
Khasis discloses all of the following limitations:
“A method comprising: identifying, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, a plurality of routes, each route of the plurality being a current route on which an autonomous vehicle of a fleet of autonomous vehicles is currently traveling, wherein each of the autonomous vehicles uses a cost-based analysis to determine routes”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses communication between autonomous vehicles all travelling based on the system disclosed in the reference that assigns dynamic costs to routes being driven.
“determining, by the one or more processors, that a cluster of autonomous vehicles of the fleet of autonomous vehicles is likely to occur on a road segment; and sending, by the one or more processors, a signal to one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles to adjust a cost of traversing the road segment in order to increase a likelihood of the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles avoiding the road segment”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses autonomous vehicles optimizing routes (i.e. solving cost functions) in coordination with each other to avoid congestion, which would include with each other.
With regards to Claim 2, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein each route of the plurality of routes includes a list of edges of map information each corresponding to a different road segment.”
Khasis [Abstract] discloses map data composed of edges representing road segments.
With regards to Claim 3, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining that the cluster of autonomous vehicles is likely to occur is based on a sliding window of time.”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses avoiding congestion between vehicles wherein congestion itself represents a surplus of vehicles co-located during a given, arbitrarily sliding, window of time.
With regards to Claim 4, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining that the cluster of autonomous vehicles is likely to occur is based on a threshold number of autonomous vehicles expected to traverse the road segment during the sliding window of time.”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses avoiding congestion between autonomous, and non-autonomous, vehicles. In order to avoid "congestion" some arbitrary threshold must be adapted for the two pertinent variables used in defining congestion at a location, i.e. time-window and number of vehicles. The system is also disclosed as being predictive in nature (See at least [Abstract]).
With regards to Claim 5, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising, determining the threshold number of autonomous vehicles based on a type of the road segment.”
Khasis [Abstract] discloses predicting future traffic and Paragraph [0089] discloses avoiding congestions along routes, such an action would require consideration of road type and how it relates to road capacity.
With regards to Claim 6, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising, determining the sliding window of time based on a type of the road segment.”
Khasis [Abstract] discloses predicting future traffic and Paragraph [0089] discloses avoiding congestions along routes, such an action would require consideration of arrival time at road segments and how they compare with the arrival times of other vehicles.
With regards to Claim 9, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the signal is a first signal, and the method further comprises sending a second signal to a second one of the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles to adjust the cost of traversing the road segment, wherein the first signal is configured to cause a first adjustment in the cost and the second signal is configured to cause a second adjustment in the cost, and wherein the first adjustment is different from the second adjustment.”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses an arbitrary number of autonomous vehicles avoiding congestion, the number of signals sent to the arbitrary number of vehicles is, itself, also arbitrary.
With regards to Claim 10, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising, continuing to send additional signals to the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles until the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles change to one or more new routes that do not include the road segment.”
Khasis Paragraph [0089] discloses autonomous vehicles communicating in order to avoid congestion amongst themselves. Such an act would require at least one vehicle to avoid a congestion-potential area.
With regards to Claim 12, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the signal includes an instruction indicating how long the cost is to be adjusted.”
Khasis Paragraph [0057] discloses the creation of temporary avoidance zones which would represent a temporarily increased road segment cost.
As per Claim 13: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising the autonomous vehicle”
Khasis Paragraph [0039] discloses an autonomous vehicle.
As per Claim 21: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Christensen (US 10,403,133).
With regards to Claim 7, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Christensen does disclose:
“wherein sending the signal is based on whether the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles are transporting passengers.”
Christensen Column 16 Lines 8-37 discloses a passenger dictating whether an autonomous vehicle takes a less traffic-dense route or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Khasis with the passenger priority disclosed by Christensen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by prioritizing passenger vehicles.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Munoz (US 2021/0110323).
With regards to Claim 8, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Munoz does disclose:
“wherein sending the signal is based on a state of charge or fuel of the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles.”
Munoz Paragraph [0131] discloses identifying route optimization based on charge level of vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Khasis with the state of charge consideration disclosed by Munoz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by minimizing the risk of becoming stranded because of traffic congestion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khasis in view of Scofield (US 2014/0278032).
With regards to Claim 11, Khasis discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitations that Munoz does disclose:
“further comprising, limiting adjustments of the cost of the road segment for the one or more of the autonomous vehicles of the cluster of autonomous vehicles to a threshold maximum.”
Scofield Paragraph [0025] discloses presenting alternative routes based on traffic congestion, however, if the route with the congestion is less than a threshold amount the congestion route will be selected equating to a limited cost threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Khasis with the threshold adjustment disclosed by Scofield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for the tuning of route priorities.
Conclusion
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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights