DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-4,8-9, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder ( USP 2019/0310636) in view of Ali Khan ( USP 2020/0317184) in view of Lindholm (USP 2022/0009520).
As Per Claim 1, Halder teaches, a method ( performed by an autonomous vehicle management system AVMS 122 of vehicle 120, Fig.1A) comprising: receiving, at a computing device (AVMS 122), sensor data from one or more sensors (LIDAR and camera, V2X, V2V ) of a first vehicle navigating a path on a road; ([0054], [0057]-[0058],[0061], Figs. 1A, 1B, 3); detecting, by the computing device and based on the sensor data, a second vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle and at a speed below a minimum threshold speed; ( using LIDAR and a camera ) [0057-0058], Fig.3); responsive to determining that the speed of the second vehicle failed to increase above the minimum threshold speed by a threshold time, ( “it is determined that another vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle is slowing down”, [0131], [0258]).
However, Halder does not explicitly teach, determining a road grade of the road based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the first vehicle; and a determination of the road grade.
In a related field of Art, Ali Khan et al. ( Ali Khan) teaches, a vehicle 10 being equipped with sensor system 28, including sensors 40, which include IMU measuring road slop grade of the road the vehicle is traveling on, ([0018], [0030], Figs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder , to include the teachings ( Inertial measuring unit IMU) of Ali Khan and configure with the system of Halder to measure the road slope grade of the road the vehicle is travelling on. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to look ahead of the terrain to detect approaching road elevation or hill or high terrain and therefore, determine road slope grade (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
However, Halder in view of Ali Khan does not explicitly teach, determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver; and controlling, by the computing device, the first vehicle based on determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver.
In an analogous art , Lindholm teaches, autonomous vehicle system, and method of operating an autonomous vehicle, wherein, determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver; and controlling, by the computing device, the first vehicle based on determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver. ([0098]-[0108], also see [0091], [0094], Figs.1, 3, and 2A-2D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder , to include the teachings (software, processors, modules, 140,150,160 etc.) of Lindholm and configure with the system of Halder in order to dynamically tracking vehicles and detecting a driving environment located externally to the autonomous vehicle which includes a presence of one or more vehicles in the lanes adjacent to the current driving lane and controlling the vehicle maneuver to the targeted lane. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to ensure safe lane changing (i.e., an added feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
As per Claim 2, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, wherein determining the road grade of the road comprises: determining the road grade based on sensor data provided by an inertial measurement unit coupled to the first vehicle. (Ali Khan : ([0018], [0030], Figs.1-2). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 3, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, wherein determining the road grade of the road comprises: determining the road grade based on image data from one or more cameras or lidar data from one or more lidars.( Halder : using LIDAR and a camera ) [0057-0058], Fig.3).
As per Claim 4, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, based on causing the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver, determining that the first vehicle has passed the second vehicle by at least a buffer distance that extends in front of the second vehicle; and causing the first vehicle to perform a second lane change maneuver responsive to determining that the first vehicle has passed the second vehicle by at least the buffer distance. ( Lindholm : [0085-0096],Figs. 2A-2D,3). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 8, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, determining a speed limit for the road; and determining the minimum threshold speed based on the speed limit for the road ( Lindholm : ( via “sensor system 180 may comprise one or more sensors (e.g., speedometers) configured to detect, determine, assess, monitor, measure, quantify, and/or the speed of the vehicle 100 and other vehicles in the external environment”, [0043],[0046],[0094], [0121]). ( See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 9, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 8. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, wherein determining the speed limit for the road comprises: determining the speed limit for the road based on images captured by one or more cameras coupled to the first vehicle. (Halder : via sensor 110 including cameras, [0011], [0057], [0083], Fig.3).
As per Claim 14, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches, wherein determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver comprises: determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on an output from a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model provides the output based on sensor data and prior training via a plurality of navigation scenarios. ( Halder : [0084], [0096], Fiug.2A).
Claim 15 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
As Per Claim 16, Halder teaches, a system comprising: a first vehicle (via autonomous vehicle 120, Fig.1A) a computing device (AVMS 122, Fig.1A) coupled to the first vehicle (120 , Fig.1A)and configured to: receive sensor data from one or more sensors ( LIDAR and camera, V2X, V2V ) of a first vehicle navigating a path on a road; ([0054], [0057]-[0058],[0061], Figs. 1A, 1B, 3); detect, based on the sensor data, a second vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle and at a speed below a minimum threshold speed; ( using LIDAR and a camera, V2X, V2V ) [0057-0058], Fig.3); responsive to determining that the speed of the second vehicle failed to increase above the minimum threshold speed by a threshold time, (“it is determined that another vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle is slowing down”, [0131], [0258]).
However, Halder does not explicitly teach, determining a road grade of the road based on the sensor data from one or more sensors of the first vehicle; and a determination of the road grade.
In a related field of Art, Ali Khan et al. ( Ali Khan) teaches, a vehicle 10 being equipped with sensor system 28, including sensors 40, which include IMU measuring road slop grade of the road the vehicle is traveling on, ([0018], [0030], Figs.1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder , to include the teachings ( Inertial measuring unit IMU) of Ali Khan and configure with the system of Halder to measure the road slope grade of the road the vehicle is travelling on. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to look ahead of the terrain to detect approaching road elevation or hill or high terrain and therefore, determine road slope grade (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
However, Halder in view of Ali Khan does not explicitly teach, determine whether to cause the first vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver; and control the first vehicle based on determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver.
In an analogous art , Lindholm teaches, autonomous vehicle system, and method of operating an autonomous vehicle, wherein, determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform a lane change maneuver; and control the first vehicle based on determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver ([0098]-[0108], also see [0091], [0094], Figs.1, 3, and 2A-2D) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder , to include the teachings (software, processors, modules, 140,150,160 etc.) of Lindholm and configure with the system of Halder in order to dynamically tracking vehicles and detecting a driving environment located externally to the autonomous vehicle which includes a presence of one or more vehicles in the lanes adjacent to the current driving lane and controlling the vehicle maneuver to the targeted lane. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to ensure safe lane changing (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
Claim 20 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder (USP 2019/0310636) in view of Ali Khan ( USP 2020/0317184) in view of Lindholm (USP 2022/0009520) in view of Koeten ( USP 2016/0140207).
As per Claim 5, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches,
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: aggregating, based on the sensor data, speed data for a plurality of lane segments corresponding to the road, wherein speed data for a lane segment is based on measurements of one or more vehicles traveling in the lane segment; (Halder : [0054], [0057],[0061], Figs. 1A, 1B, 3); and wherein detecting the second vehicle traveling in front of the first vehicle and at the speed below the minimum threshold speed (Halder : using LIDAR and a camera ) [0057-0058], Fig.3) comprises: detecting the second vehicle based on the speed data for the plurality of lane segments. (Halder: using LIDAR and a camera ) [0057-0058], Fig.3). ( “it is determined that another vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle is slowing down”, [0131], [0258]).
However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm does not explicitly teach, aggregating, based on the sensor data, speed data for a plurality of lane segments corresponding to the road.
In a related field of art, Koeten teaches, systems and methods for aggregating information-asset classification, wherein, the system comprising module 102 being imbedded with an aggregation module 108, for aggregating data, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder, to include the teachings ( aggregation module 108) of Koeten and configure with the system of Halder in order to aggregate the surrounding vehicles speed data obtained from sensors to get average speed of the surrounding vehicles speed and to decide lane change maneuvering. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to ensure safe lane changing (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
6. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder ( USP 2019/0310636) in view of Ali Khan ( USP 2020/0317184) in view of Lindholm (USP 2022/0009520) in view of Koeten ( USP 2016/0140207) in view of Zhang eta l. ( USP 2021/0287538).
As per Claim 6, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten teaches, wherein aggregating speed data for the plurality of lane segments corresponding to the road ( Koeten; [0063]).
However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten does not explicitly teach, obtaining speed data that conveys a maximum speed and a minimum speed of one or more vehicles traveling in each lane segment.
In a related field of Art, Zhang et al. ( Zhang) teaches, a system for classifying a speed sign, wherein, obtaining speed data that conveys a maximum speed and a minimum speed of one or more vehicles traveling in each lane segment. ( via computer programs obtaining maximum and minimum speed, See claims 1,11 and 20, Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten and Zhang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder, to include the teachings (computer programs) of Zhang and configure with the system of Halder in order to obtain speed data conveying maximum and a minimum speed. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to ensure safe lane changing (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance vehicle maneuver safety).
As per Claim 7, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm , Koeten and Zhang teaches the limitation of Claim 6. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm and Koeten and Zhang teaches, wherein determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver comprises: based on determining that a minimum speed of travel in an adjacent lane is at least a threshold faster than the speed of the second vehicle, ( Lindholm : ( via “sensor system 180 may comprise one or more sensors (e.g., speedometers) configured to detect, determine, assess, monitor, measure, quantify, and/or the speed of the vehicle 100 and other vehicles in the external environment”, [0043],[0046],[0094], [0121]) causing the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver into the adjacent lane ( Lindholm : [0098]-[0108], also see [0091], [0094], Figs.1, 3, and 2A-2D) .
( See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder (USP 2019/0310636) in view of Ali Khan ( USP 2020/0317184) in view of Lindholm (USP 2022/0009520) in view of OTA et al. ( JP-2018-149915).
As per Claim 10, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm does not explicitly teach, determining a condition of each tire on the first vehicle; and wherein determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver comprises: determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on determining the condition of each tire on the first vehicle.
In a related field of Art, Ota et al. (Ota) teaches, a travel control device, wherein determining a condition of each tire on the first vehicle; and wherein determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver comprises: determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on determining the condition of each tire on the first vehicle. (via ECU 10 changing lane based on limit lateral acceleration and dynamically determining limit lateral acceleration based on “road surface conditions such as rainfall and snowfall, and tire conditions (type and friction coefficient)”. See Page 6 , 3rd-4th para ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm and Ota before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder, to include the teachings (computer programs) of Ota and configure with the system of Halder in order to while changing lane, calculate limit lateral acceleration based on tire condition. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to assess type and road friction coefficient when changing lane (i.e., an added safety feature to achieve smooth lane change ).
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halder ( USP 2019/0310636) in view of Ali Khan ( USP 2020/0317184) in view of Lindholm (USP 2022/0009520) in view of Yigit (WO-2021-040665) in view of Ramasamy ( USP 10,089,876).
As per Claim 17, Halder as modified by Ali Khan and Lindholm teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Halder in view of Ali Khan and Lindholm does not explicitly teach, wherein a trailer is coupled to the first vehicle, and wherein the computing device is further configured to: determine whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on parameters of the trailer, wherein the parameters of the trailer include a length of the trailer, a height of the trailer, and a weight of the trailer.
In a related field of art Yigit et al. (Yigit) teaches, a vehicle coupled to a trailer (Page 4, last para to Page 5 first para ).
In an analogous art, Ramasamy et al. ( Ramasamy) teaches, systems and methods for coordinated lane-change negotiation between vehicles, wherein a trailer is coupled to the first vehicle, and wherein the computing device is further configured to: determine whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on parameters of the trailer, wherein the parameters of the trailer include a length of the trailer, a height of the trailer, and a weight of the trailer.( vehicle 640 transmitting a request for lane change to adjacent lane vehicles, transmitting minimum safe buffer distance or lane merge spacing and also transmitting vehicle’s information such as vehicle dimension to the receiving vehicles 462b-c, 644 in coordinating the lane change, Col.11, lines 9-34 also see , col.15, lines 52-63, Figs. 5-6).
Furthermore, Ramasamy does not teach, wherein a trailer is coupled to the first vehicle, and determining whether to cause the first vehicle to perform the lane change maneuver based on parameters of the trailer. Therefore, vehicle coordinating lane change, and transmitting vehicle’s dimensions to adjacent vehicles and requesting lane merge spacing in Ramasamy , it would have been obvious to determine trailer’s dimension and transmit it to other vehicles when requesting for a lane change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Halder and Ali Khan and Lindholm , Yigit and Ramasamy before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Halder, to include the teachings (trailer) of Yigit and System of Ramasamy and configure with the system of Halder in order to vehicle equipping itself with a trailer ad performing a lane change maneuver. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to ensure proper spacing to merge with other vehicles (i.e., an added feature to enhance vehicle safety).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 11-13 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C