DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 24, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 12, and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach et al. (herein after "Herbach").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Herbach discloses a method (see at least Figs. 1, 16, Col. 7, Lines 10-23, Col. 8, Lines 25-49, and Abstract, Herbach discloses an autonomous vehicle trajectory planning system wherein when AV paths encounter blockages impeding the AV paths, a request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory is transmitted, and then delivered to the AV to navigate around the blockage obstructing / impeding a trajectory in the path) comprising:
determining, at an autonomous vehicle, a portion of an environment that impedes a planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ Herbach teaches existence of a planned path that subsequently needs to be modified in order to resolve an impedance (pertaining to a stopped vehicle(s) 812 - 816 per Fig. 9) of the planned path.
Furthermore, see Fig. 1 ~ process method step 110. See Figs. 6-7. See Col. 8, Lines 25-28 and Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Herbach discloses wherein sensors (i.e. laser ~ LIDAR) detect a portion (segment / section of the road 602 along the trajectory of the AV 610, being occupied by vehicle 614), wherein vehicle 614 now blocks the portion);
determining, at the autonomous vehicle and based at least in part on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path (see at least Fig. 1 ~ process method step 130. Fig. 3 ~ process method step 340. Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440, Fig. 9, See Col. 9, Lines 1-5, Col. 10, Lines 1-19, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45, Herbach discloses receiving a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path),
re-routing data associated with navigating the autonomous vehicle around the portion of the environment, the re-routing data comprising an alternative route (see at least Fig. 6, Fig. 15A, Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Col. 23, Lines 60-67 through Col. 24, Lines 1-10 and 52-65. In particular, see Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 52-65, Herbach discloses alternate routing data representing alternative paths); and
controlling, based at least in part on the re-routing data, the autonomous vehicle to navigate around the portion of the environment. (See at least Figs. 8-10 and 15A-15C. In particular, see Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440. See Col. 11, Lines 28-57 and Col. 12, Lines 6-10, after having received a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path, Herbach discloses wherein the AV’s processor (see Fig. 19A ~ processors 1903 and Col. 36, Lines 6 - 12 ) processes the response as a command, where the processor then performs controlling the AV to physically navigate around blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path).
As to Claim 2,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, at the autonomous vehicle, a plurality of alternative routes, wherein the alternative route is one of the plurality of alternative routes. (See at least Fig. 15A and Col. 23, Lines 47-61, Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61, Herbach teaches wherein when blockages (bovines) obstruct / impede planned path (trajectory 1540), autonomous vehicle AVx123 automatically determines (defines) “a new trajectory that tries to take attractive paths and avoid repelled paths”. Herein specifically, attractive paths are a plurality of alternative paths that allow the autonomous vehicle AVx123 to safely and efficiently navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage).
As to Claim 3,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising
determining the plurality of alternative routes based at least in part on one or more of:
a time cost; a number of turns; or a number of lane changes. (See at least Col. 6, Lines 66-67 through Col. 7, Lines 1-9, and Col. 8, Lines 15-20, Herbach discloses wherein the vehicle computing system of the autonomous vehicle generates alternative trajectories (routes) which implement operational constraints to avoid sudden turns and / or time inefficiencies (time costs), unless the computed alternative trajectories (routes) deem it absolutely necessary in the performance of resolving AV paths wherein blockages are encountered which impede the AV paths).
As to Claim 4,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a lane change into a second lane that is different from the first lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane);
determining that the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the second lane proximate the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded by pedestrians 820-n and vehicle 816); and
determining, based on an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change (see at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change. (See at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support).
As to Claim 5,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a junction associated with the first lane and a second lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane; and Herbach teaches a vehicle control system where the roadway may comprise intersections. See Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections);
determining that the portion of the environment impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the junction or the second lane (see at least Fig. 8, Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections are detected to be impeding the planned path, Col. 15, Lines 49-63 ~ stuck condition of AV 810 includes the second lane being impacted, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ planned AV 810 path); and
determining that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction (see at least Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction. Thus, Herbach teaches that AV 810 is unable to travel through the junction at least until the assistance center instructs and informs that it is safe for AV 810 to do so as in Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction. (See at least Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction that Herbach teaches by way of principle, precept, and example (see Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections) such that the AV 810 only performs a prescribed navigation through a junction when it is absolutely safe to do so as transmitted from the assistance center work around solution in response to the AV 810's request for support).
As to Claim 7,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 ~ process method step 110. See Figs. 6-7. See Col. 8, Lines 25-28, and Col. 12, Lines 41-52);
receiving map data representing the environment proximate the autonomous vehicle (see at least Col. 19, Lines 37 - 47 ~ "Car spatial data 1214 may be… considered with additional sensor indicated information… and/or baseline maps of the environment to generate high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representations of objects in the environment”); and
determining the re-routing data based at least in part on the sensor data and the map data. (See at least Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61 ~ re-routing processes; and Col. 19, Lines 37 - 47 ~ sensor and map data collection).
As to Claim 8,
Herbach discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that (see at least Col. 36, Lines 13 - 26 and 43 - 49, non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions), when executed by one or more processors,
cause one or more computing devices (see at least Fig. 19A ~ processors 1903 and Col. 36, Lines 6 – 12) to perform operations comprising:
detecting, at an autonomous vehicle, a portion of an environment that impedes a planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 6 - 8, 15A, Col. 8, Lines 25-49. In particular, see Fig. 1 ~ process method step 110. See Figs. 6-7. See Col. 8, Lines 25-28, and Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Herbach discloses wherein sensors (i.e. laser ~ LIDAR) detect a portion (segment / section of the road 602 along the trajectory of the AV 610, being occupied by vehicle 614), wherein vehicle 614 now blocks the portion. In Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ Herbach teaches existence of a planned path that subsequently needs to be modified in order to resolve an impedance (pertaining to a stopped vehicle(s) 812 - 816 per Fig. 9) of the planned path. Pursuant to [0011] of the disclosure, Herbach also teaches wherein the blocked portion corresponds to a warning light signal may be attributed to a warning signal often associated with a construction sign and / or construction zone. See Col. 9, Lines 10 - 22. Additionally, see Col. 19, Lines 62-67, Herbach teaches blocked portions as areas represented by point clouds comprise regions having traffic cones corresponding with warning areas, such as in construction and / or pedestrian zones);
determining, at the autonomous vehicle and based at least in part on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path (see at least Fig. 1 ~ process method step 130. Fig. 3 ~ process method step 340. Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440, Fig. 9, See Col. 9, Lines 1-5, Col. 10, Lines 1-19, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45, Herbach discloses receiving a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path),
re-routing data associated with navigating the autonomous vehicle around the portion of the environment (see at least Fig. 6, Fig. 15A, Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Col. 23, Lines 60-67 through Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61. In particular, see Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61, Herbach discloses alternate routing data representing alternative paths, wherein alternative paths are a plurality of “attractive paths” that allow the autonomous vehicle AVx123 to safely and efficiently navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage), the re-routing data comprising an alternative route (see at least Fig. 6, Fig. 15A, Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Col. 23, Lines 60-67 through Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61. In particular, see Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 – 61); and
controlling, based at least in part on the re-routing data, the autonomous vehicle to navigate around the portion of the environment. (See at least Figs. 8-10 and 15A-15C. In particular, see Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440. See Col. 11, Lines 28-57 and Col. 12, Lines 6-10, after having received a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path, Herbach discloses wherein the AV’s processor (see Fig. 19A ~ processors 1903 and Col. 36, Lines 6 - 12 ) processes the response as a command, where the processor then performs controlling the AV to physically navigate around blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path).
As to Claim 9,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, the operations further comprising:
determining, at the autonomous vehicle, a plurality of alternative routes, wherein the alternative route is one of the plurality of alternative routes. (See at least Fig. 15A and Col. 23, Lines 47-61, Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61, Herbach teaches wherein when blockages (bovines) obstruct / impede planned path (trajectory 1540), autonomous vehicle AVx123 automatically determines (defines) “a new trajectory that tries to take attractive paths and avoid repelled paths”. Herein specifically, attractive paths are a plurality of alternative paths that allow the autonomous vehicle AVx123 to safely and efficiently navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage).
As to Claim 10,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9,
the operations further comprising
determining the plurality of alternative routes further based at least in part on one or more of:
a time cost; a number of turns; or a number of lane changes. (See at least Col. 6, Lines 66-67 through Col. 7, Lines 1-9, and Col. 8, Lines 15-20, Herbach discloses wherein the vehicle computing system of the autonomous vehicle generates alternative trajectories (routes) which implement operational constraints to avoid sudden turns and / or time inefficiencies (time costs), unless the computed alternative trajectories (routes) deem it absolutely necessary in the performance of resolving AV paths wherein blockages are encountered which impede the AV paths).
As to Claim 11,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, the operations further comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a lane change into a second lane that is different from the first lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane);
determining that the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the second lane proximate the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded by pedestrians 820-n and vehicle 816. See Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ Herbach teaches existence of a planned path that subsequently needs to be modified in order to resolve an impedance (also pertaining to a stopped vehicle(s) 812 - 816 per Fig. 9) of the planned path); and
determining, based on an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change (see at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change. (See at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support).
As to Claim 12,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8,
the operations comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle include a junction associated with the first lane and a second lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane; and Herbach teaches a vehicle control system where the roadway may comprise intersections. See Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections);
determining that the portion of the environment impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the junction or the second lane (see at least Fig. 8, Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections are detected to be impeding the planned path, Col. 15, Lines 49-63 ~ stuck condition of AV 810 includes the second lane being impacted, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ planned AV 810 path); and
determining that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction (see at least Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction. Thus, Herbach teaches that AV 810 is unable to travel through the junction at least until the assistance center instructs and informs that it is safe for AV 810 to do so as in Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction. (See at least Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction that Herbach teaches by way of principle, precept, and example (see Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections) such that the AV 810 only performs a prescribed navigation through a junction when it is absolutely safe to do so as transmitted from the assistance center work around solution in response to the AV 810's request for support).
As to Claim 14,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8, the operations further comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor associated with the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 1 ~ process method step 110. See Figs. 6-7. See Col. 8, Lines 25-28, and Col. 12, Lines 41-52);
receiving map data representing the environment proximate the autonomous vehicle (see at least Col. 19, Lines 37 - 47 ~ "Car spatial data 1214 may be… considered with additional sensor indicated information… and/or baseline maps of the environment to generate high-level, polygonal or polyhedral representations of objects in the environment”); and
determining the re-routing data based at least in part on the sensor data and the map data. (See at least Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61 ~ re-routing processes; and Col. 19, Lines 37 - 47 ~ sensor and map data collection).
As to Claim 15,
Herbach discloses a system (see at least Figs. 1, 16, Col. 7, Lines 10-23, Col. 8, Lines 25-49, and Abstract, Herbach discloses an autonomous vehicle trajectory planning system wherein when AV paths encounter blockages impeding the AV paths, a request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory is transmitted, and then delivered to the AV to navigate around the blockage obstructing / impeding a trajectory in the path) comprising:
one or more processors (see at least Fig. 19A ~ processors 1903 and Col. 36, Lines 6 – 12); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (see at least Col. 36, Lines 13 - 26 and 43 - 49, non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions),
wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
detecting, at an autonomous vehicle, a portion of an environment that impedes a planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Figs. 1, 6 - 8, 15A, Col. 8, Lines 25-49. In particular, see Fig. 1 ~ process method step 110. See Figs. 6-7. See Col. 8, Lines 25-28, and Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Herbach discloses wherein sensors (i.e. laser ~ LIDAR) detect a portion (segment / section of the road 602 along the trajectory of the AV 610, being occupied by vehicle 614), wherein vehicle 614 now blocks the portion. In Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ Herbach teaches existence of a planned path that subsequently needs to be modified in order to resolve an impedance (pertaining to a stopped vehicle(s) 812 - 816 per Fig. 9) of the planned path. Pursuant to [0011] of the disclosure, Herbach also teaches wherein the blocked portion corresponds to a warning light signal may be attributed to a warning signal often associated with a construction sign and / or construction zone. See Col. 9, Lines 10 - 22. Additionally, see Col. 19, Lines 62-67, Herbach teaches blocked portions as areas represented by point clouds comprise regions having traffic cones corresponding with warning areas, such as in construction and / or pedestrian zones);
determining, at the autonomous vehicle and based at least in part on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path (see at least Fig. 1 ~ process method step 130. Fig. 3 ~ process method step 340. Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440, Fig. 9, See Col. 9, Lines 1-5, Col. 10, Lines 1-19, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45, Herbach discloses receiving a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path),
re-routing data associated with navigating the autonomous vehicle around the portion of the environment (see at least Fig. 6, Fig. 15A, Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Col. 23, Lines 60-67 through Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61. In particular, see Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61, Herbach discloses alternate routing data representing alternative paths, wherein alternative paths are a plurality of “attractive paths” that allow the autonomous vehicle AVx123 to safely and efficiently navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage), the re-routing data comprising
an alternative route (see at least Fig. 6, Fig. 15A, Col. 12, Lines 41-52, Col. 23, Lines 60-67 through Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61. In particular, see Figs. 6, 15A, Col. 11, Lines 47-57, and Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 – 61); and
controlling, based at least in part on the re-routing data, the autonomous vehicle to navigate around the portion of the environment. (See at least Figs. 8-10 and 15A-15C. In particular, see Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 430 - 440. See Col. 11, Lines 28-57 and Col. 12, Lines 6-10, after having received a response to the request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory for the AV to navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path, Herbach discloses wherein the AV’s processor (see Fig. 19A ~ processors 1903 and Col. 36, Lines 6 - 12 ) processes the response as a command, where the processor then performs controlling the AV to physically navigate around blocked portion ~ blockage impeding the path).
As to Claim 16,
Herbach discloses the system of claim 15, the operations further comprising:
determining, at the autonomous vehicle, a plurality of alternative routes,
wherein the alternative route is one of the plurality of alternative routes. (See at least Fig. 15A and Col. 23, Lines 47-61, Col. 24, Lines 26 – 32, Lines 48 – 51 and Lines 54 - 61, Herbach teaches wherein when blockages (bovines) obstruct / impede planned path (trajectory 1540), autonomous vehicle AVx123 automatically determines (defines) “a new trajectory that tries to take attractive paths and avoid repelled paths”. Herein specifically, attractive paths are a plurality of alternative paths that allow the autonomous vehicle AVx123 to safely and efficiently navigate around the blocked portion ~ blockage).
As to Claim 17,
Herbach discloses the system of claim 16, the operations further comprising
wherein the plurality of alternative routes are determined based at least in part on one or more of:
a time cost; a number of turns; or a number of lane changes. (See at least Col. 6, Lines 66-67 through Col. 7, Lines 1-9, and Col. 8, Lines 15-20, Herbach discloses wherein the vehicle computing system of the autonomous vehicle generates alternative trajectories (routes) which implement operational constraints to avoid sudden turns and / or time inefficiencies (time costs), unless the computed alternative trajectories (routes) deem it absolutely necessary in the performance of resolving AV paths wherein blockages are encountered which impede the AV paths).
As to Claim 18,
Herbach discloses the system of claim 15, the operations further comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a lane change into a second lane that is different from the first lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane);
determining that the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the second lane proximate the autonomous vehicle (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded by pedestrians 820-n and vehicle 816. See Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ Herbach teaches existence of a planned path that subsequently needs to be modified in order to resolve an impedance (also pertaining to a stopped vehicle(s) 812 - 816 per Fig. 9) of the planned path); and
determining, based on an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change (see at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change. (See at least Figs. 8 - 9, Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with the second lane proximate the AV 810 based upon an overlap between the portion of the environment and the planned path, until the AV 810 is able to perform the prescribed lane change from the assistance centers work around solution that is transmitted to the AV 810 in response to the AV 810's request for support).
As to Claim 19,
Herbach discloses the system of claim 15, the operations further comprising:
determining that the autonomous vehicle is operating in a first lane (see at least Fig. 9 ~ autonomous vehicle 810 can traverse new trajectory 946 comprising driving on shoulder 906, as a result of the second lane proximate autonomous vehicle 810 being partially impeded);
determining that the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a junction linking the first lane to a second lane (see at least Fig. 8 and Col. 15, Lines 49-63, upon determination the AV 810 experiences a scenario where its path is obstructed, the AV 810's planned path (original trajectory 830) is modified with an alternate trajectory (new trajectory 836) which instructs the AV 810 to perform a lane change from a first lane to a second lane; and Herbach teaches a vehicle control system where the roadway may comprise intersections. See Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections);
determining that the portion of the environment impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle is associated with the junction or the second lane (see at least Fig. 8, Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections are detected to be impeding the planned path, Col. 15, Lines 49-63 ~ stuck condition of AV 810 includes the second lane being impacted, and Col. 17, Lines 42 - 45 ~ planned AV 810 path); and
determining that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction (see at least Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction. Thus, Herbach teaches that AV 810 is unable to travel through the junction at least until the assistance center instructs and informs that it is safe for AV 810 to do so as in Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections),
wherein the re-routing data is determined based on a determination that the autonomous vehicle is unable to travel through the junction. (See Col. 14, Lines 64-67 through Col. 15, Lines 10 - 53, Herbach discloses heuristic control such that upon determination that portion of the environment obstructs the AV 810's planned path corresponding with a junction that Herbach teaches by way of principle, precept, and example (see Col. 7, Lines 31-37, intersections) such that the AV 810 only performs a prescribed navigation through a junction when it is absolutely safe to do so as transmitted from the assistance center work around solution in response to the AV 810's request for support).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,849,494 B1 to Herbach et al. (herein after "Herbach") as to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0094539 A1 to BELLER (“Beller”).
As to Claim 6,
Herbach discloses the method of claim 1.
As shown above, Herbach discloses an autonomous vehicle trajectory planning system wherein when AV paths encounter blockages impeding the AV paths, a request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory is transmitted, and then delivered to the AV to navigate around the blockage obstructing / impeding a trajectory in the path (see Figs. 1, 8 – 9, 16, Col. 7, Lines 10-23, and Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising:
determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; and
determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point.
Conversely, Beller discloses determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses calculating critical points (waypoints) in particular wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path(s) of the autonomous vehicle (AV), and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone); and determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point. (See ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path of the AV, and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone), and in particular prior to the AV arriving to a subset of classes corresponding to the semantic classification (pedestrians walking in front of car waiting at construction zone). Note that Beller also extends subset of classes to include equestrians. See ¶0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Herbach wherein the AV determines to stop the AV a distance away from the critical point prior to receiving the instruction (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117), as taught by Beller, to provide halting an AV relative to the portion of the environment comprising a blocking object, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving vehicle safety and pedestrian collision avoidance; facilitating consistent vehicle operation reliability, by increasing reaction time for the vehicle such that the vehicle allows discrete and the least amount of time for the blocking object to move out of the path of the vehicle.
As to Claim 13,
Herbach discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 8.
As shown above, Herbach discloses an autonomous vehicle trajectory planning system wherein when AV paths encounter blockages impeding the AV paths, a request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory is transmitted, and then delivered to the AV to navigate around the blockage obstructing / impeding a trajectory in the path (see Figs. 1, 8 – 9, 16, Col. 7, Lines 10-23, and Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising:
determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; and
determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point.
On the contrary, Beller discloses determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses calculating critical points (waypoints) in particular wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path(s) of the autonomous vehicle (AV), and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone); and determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point. (See ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path of the AV, and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone), and in particular prior to the AV arriving to a subset of classes corresponding to the semantic classification (pedestrians walking in front of car waiting at construction zone). Note that Beller also extends subset of classes to include equestrians. See ¶0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Herbach wherein the AV determines to stop the AV a distance away from the critical point prior to receiving the instruction (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117), as taught by Beller, to provide halting an AV relative to the portion of the environment comprising a blocking object, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving vehicle safety and pedestrian collision avoidance; facilitating consistent vehicle operation reliability, by increasing reaction time for the vehicle such that the vehicle allows discrete and the least amount of time for the blocking object to move out of the path of the vehicle.
As to Claim 20,
Herbach discloses the system of claim 15.
As shown above, Herbach discloses an autonomous vehicle trajectory planning system wherein when AV paths encounter blockages impeding the AV paths, a request for a new workaround or alternative trajectory is transmitted, and then delivered to the AV to navigate around the blockage obstructing / impeding a trajectory in the path (see Figs. 1, 8 – 9, 16, Col. 7, Lines 10-23, and Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising:
determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle; and
determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point.
Beller, on the other hand, discloses determining a critical point based on the portion of the environment that impedes the planned path of the autonomous vehicle (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses calculating critical points (waypoints) in particular wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path(s) of the autonomous vehicle (AV), and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone); and determining to stop the autonomous vehicle at least a threshold distance away from the critical point. (See ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117, Beller discloses wherein vehicle computing system detects objects blocking path of the AV, and subsequently causes the AV to slow and come to a stop prior to the blocked portion, semantically classified (a construction zone), and in particular prior to the AV arriving to a subset of classes corresponding to the semantic classification (pedestrians walking in front of car waiting at construction zone). Note that Beller also extends subset of classes to include equestrians. See ¶0011).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Herbach wherein the AV determines to stop the AV a distance away from the critical point prior to receiving the instruction (see ¶0023, ¶0065, and ¶0117), as taught by Beller, to provide halting an AV relative to the portion of the environment comprising a blocking object, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: improving vehicle safety and pedestrian collision avoidance; facilitating consistent vehicle operation reliability, by increasing reaction time for the vehicle such that the vehicle allows discrete and the least amount of time for the blocking object to move out of the path of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661