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 .
Examiner Note:
Cited references are bold italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 4: determine,
Claim 15, line 1: wherein
Claim 16, line 1: wherein
Claim 17, line 1: wherein
Claim 18, line 1: wherein
Claim 19, line 1: wherein
Claim 20, line 1: wherein
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede et al. (US 20220097690 A1; hereinafter Dede) in view of Foster et al. (US 20230140569 A1; hereinafter Foster).
Regarding claim 1, Dede teaches an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus (see at least, [0053] AV control systems 130 may include a plurality of different systems/
subsystems to control operation of vehicle 100…can include, autonomous driving module) comprising: a controller configured to: determine, in a merging section on a road, at least one area of a safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 (e.g. control zone 710a, 710b)..the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone), a yield area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0019] The ONN can be configured to detect that the mobile vehicle is approaching the conflict zone) wherein: the safety area comprises a first part of the merging section designated for vehicles that have a right of way (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 …the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone, within which vehicles can be observed where connectivity and/or vehicle coordination is not necessary for the vehicles to traverse the conflict zone 706), the yield area comprises a second part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should yield to traffic on the road (see at least, Fig 7A, 705).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Conflict Area (705), i.e. Yield Area )][AltContent: textbox (Control Area (710a, 710b), i.e. Safety Area )]
PNG
media_image1.png
283
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dede does not explicitly teach a controller configured to: determine, in a merging section on a road at least one area a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road, and determine a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and a brake configured to, based on the driving strategy, adjust a speed of the vehicle. However, Foster teaches these limitations.
Foster teaches a controller configured to: determine, in a merging section on a road at least one area a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp…may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105
is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…if the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop), and determine a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and a brake configured to, based on the driving strategy, adjust a speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0616] if the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop if the time to collision (TTC) is less than a predetermined length of time, e.g., 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 7 seconds, 8 seconds, or 9 seconds, with a vehicle in the roadway lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into).
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 Dede to include a controller configured to: determine, in a merging section on a road at least one area a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road, and determine a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and a brake configured to, based on the driving strategy, adjust a speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Dede further teaches wherein the controller is configured to set the safety area in the merging section (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 (e.g. control zone 710a, 710b)..the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the of claim 2. Foster further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle
105 is in a zipper merge lane, after crossing the ramp meter lights, the in-vehicle control computer
150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane), and determine, based on an average speed of vehicles on a merging road within the safety area, the speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section, and determine, based on an average speed of vehicles on a merging road within the safety area, the speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Dede further teaches wherein the controller is configured to set the safety area and the yield area in the merging section (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone, within which vehicles can be observed where connectivity and/or vehicle coordination is not necessary for the vehicles to traverse the conflict zone 706).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Dede further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set the yield area based on a speed limit of a main road and a speed limit of a merging road (see at least, [0074] Mapping data can include location information…such as a location of a conflict zone…dimension of the conflict zone…speed limits) , and set a preset area from a start point of the yield area in a direction of the vehicle as an end point of the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Foster further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a zipper merge lane…the in-vehicle control computer 150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane), and determine, determine the speed of the target vehicle based on an average speed of vehicles on a merging road within an area from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section after entering the safety area (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount…for example, 8%, 10%, 12% higher than normal following distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section, and determine, determine the speed of the target vehicle based on an average speed of vehicles on a merging road within an area from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section after entering the safety area as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Dede further teaches wherein the controller is configured to set the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 (e.g. control zone 710a, 710b)..the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone), the yield area in the merging section (see at least, Fig 7A, [0019] The ONN can be configured to detect that the mobile vehicle is approaching the conflict zone).
Foster further teaches the controller is configured to set the stop area in the merging section (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp…may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…if the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include the controller is configured to set the stop area in the merging section as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Foster further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: set a preset first distance from an end point of the merging section in a direction of the vehicle as a start point of the stop area (see at least, [0552] If there is a vehicle(s) inside the circle of the roundabout on the left side of the entryway of the autonomous vehicle 105, the autonomous vehicle 105 may yield to the traffic inside the circle and perform a full stop…before the entryway), set a preset second distance from a start point of the stop area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the yield area (see at least, [0552] If there is a vehicle(s) inside the circle of the roundabout on the left side of the entryway of the autonomous vehicle 105, the autonomous vehicle 105 may yield to the traffic inside the circle and perform a full stop…before the entryway…less than predetermined distance from the entryway of the roundabout, e.g., 15 meters or less, 20 meters or less, or 25 meters or less).
Dede further teaches set a preset third distance from a start point of the yield area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, distance Lza).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include set a preset first distance from an end point of the merging section in a direction of the vehicle as a start point of the stop area, set a preset second distance from a start point of the stop area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the yield area as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Foster further teaches wherein the controller is configured to: before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a zipper merge lane…the in-vehicle control computer 150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane), and determine, based on an average speed of vehicles from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section, the speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include before entering the safety area, reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section, and determine, based on an average speed of vehicles from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section, the speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Foster further teaches wherein the controller is configured to stop, based on the vehicle entering the stop area, the vehicle to allow another vehicle on the merging section to enter a main part of the road (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, the in-vehicle control computer 150 may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…it may stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include the controller is configured to stop, based on the vehicle entering the stop area, the vehicle to allow another vehicle on the merging section to enter a main part of the road as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 14, Dede teaches a method performed by an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (see at least, [0053] AV control systems 130 may include a plurality of different systems/subsystems to control operation of vehicle 100…can include, autonomous driving module), the method comprising: determining, in a merging section on a road, at least one area of a safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 (e.g. control zone 710a, 710b)..the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone), a yield area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0019] The ONN can be configured to detect that the mobile vehicle is approaching the conflict zone) wherein: the safety area comprises a first part of the merging section designated for vehicles that have a right of way (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 …the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone, within which vehicles can be observed where connectivity and/or vehicle coordination is not necessary for the vehicles to traverse the conflict zone 706), the yield area comprises a second part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should yield to traffic on the road the yield area comprises a second part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should yield to traffic on the road (see at least, Fig 7A, 705).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Conflict Area (705), i.e. Yield Area )][AltContent: textbox (Control Area (710a, 710b), i.e. Safety Area )]
PNG
media_image1.png
283
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dede does not explicitly teach determining, in a merging section on a road at least one area of a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road; determining a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and adjusting, based on the driving strategy, a speed of the vehicle. However, Foster teaches these limitations.
Foster teaches determining, in a merging section on a road at least one area of a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp…may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…if the autonomous vehicle
105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop), determining a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and adjusting, based on the driving strategy, a speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0616] if the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop if the time to collision (TTC) is less than a predetermined length of time, e.g., 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 7 seconds, 8 seconds, or 9 seconds, with a vehicle in the roadway lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into).
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 Dede to include determining, in a merging section on a road at least one area of a stop area, the stop area comprises a third part of the merging section designated for vehicles that should stop before merging onto the road; determining a driving strategy of the vehicle for the at least one area; and adjusting, based on the driving strategy, a speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 14. Dede further teaches wherein the determining the driving strategy comprises: setting, based on a speed limit of a main part of the road and a speed limit of the merging section, the yield area (see at least, [0074] Mapping data can include location information…such as a location of a conflict zone…dimension of the conflict zone…speed limits); setting a preset distance from a start point of the yield area in a direction of the vehicle as an end point of the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A).
Foster further teaches before entering the safety area, reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a zipper merge lane…the in-vehicle control computer 150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane); and determining, based on an average speed of vehicles from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section, the speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include before entering the safety area, reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section, determining, based on an average speed of vehicles from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section, the speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 14. Dede further teaches wherein the determining the driving strategy comprises setting the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, [0141] it is not necessary that the vehicle be in communication with other vehicles in or around the control zone 710 (e.g. control zone 710a, 710b)..the control zone is an area upstream of the conflict zone), the yield area in the merging section (see at least, Fig 7A, [0019] The ONN can be configured to detect that the mobile vehicle is approaching the conflict zone).
Foster further teaches setting the stop area in the merging section (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp…may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…if the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, it may stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include setting the stop area in the merging section as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 18. Foster further teaches wherein the setting the safety area, the yield area, and the stop area comprises: setting a preset first distance from an end point of the merging section in a direction of the vehicle as a start point of the stop area (see at least, [0552] If there is a vehicle(s) inside the circle of the roundabout on the left side of the entryway of the autonomous vehicle 105, the autonomous vehicle 105 may yield to the traffic inside the circle and perform a full stop…before the entryway); setting a preset second distance from a start point of the stop area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the yield area (see at least, [0552] If there is a vehicle(s) inside the circle of the roundabout on the left side of the entryway of the autonomous vehicle 105, the autonomous vehicle 105 may yield to the traffic inside the circle and perform a full stop…before the entryway…less than predetermined distance from the entryway of the roundabout, e.g., 15 meters or less, 20 meters or less, or 25 meters or less).
Dede further teaches setting a preset third distance from a start point of the yield area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the safety area (see at least, Fig 7A, distance Lza).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include setting a preset first distance from an end point of the merging section in a direction of the vehicle as a start point of the stop area, setting a preset second distance from a start point of the stop area in the direction of the vehicle as an end point of the yield area as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Claims 3, 8, 12, 15 , 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dede et al. (US 20220097690 A1; hereinafter Dede) in view of Foster et al. (US 20230140569 A1; hereinafter Foster) and in further view of Dax et al. (US 20210229656 A1; hereinafter Dax).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to set the safety area based on a speed limit of a main road and a speed limit of a merging road. However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches the controller is configured to set the safety area based on a speed limit of a main road and a speed limit of a merging road (see at least, [0058] the safety distance 432 may be based on…a speed limit associated with the second lane 410, an estimated time for the vehicle 404 to reach the speed limit for the second lane 410 from a current speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include set the safety area based on a speed limit of a main road and a speed limit of a merging road as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 5. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area, and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area. However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches the controller is configured to: detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle arrives in the collision zone after the object. In the time-space overlap 322, the object has nearly exited the collision zone before the vehicle enters the collision zone), and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle would yield to the object based on the time-space overlap 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area, and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to: detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle enters the yield area, and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area.
However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches the controller is configured to: detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle arrives in the collision zone after the object. In the time-space overlap 322, the object has nearly exited the collision zone before the vehicle enters the collision zone), and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle would yield to the object based on the time-space overlap 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include the controller is configured to: detect another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle enters the yield area, and reduce the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 14. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the determining the driving strategy comprises: setting, based on a speed limit of a main part of the road and a speed limit of the merging section, the safety area in the merging section. However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches the determining the driving strategy comprises: setting, based on a speed limit of a main part of the road and a speed limit of the merging section, the safety area in the merging section (see at least, [0058] the safety distance 432 may be based on…a speed limit associated with the second lane 410, an estimated time for the vehicle 404 to reach the speed limit for the second lane 410 from a current speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include the determining the driving strategy comprises: setting, based on a speed limit of a main part of the road and a speed limit of the merging section, the safety area in the merging section as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Foster further teaches before entering the safety area, reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a zipper merge lane…the in-vehicle control computer 150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane); and determining, based on an average speed of vehicles on the safety area, the speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dede to include before entering the safety area, reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section, and determining, based on an average speed of vehicles on a merging road within the safety area, the speed of the vehicle as taught by Foster so that the autonomous vehicle may prepare for a full stop or slow down to avoid a collision (Foster, [0533]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 16. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the determining the driving strategy comprises: detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area; and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area. However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle arrives in the collision zone after the object. In the time-space overlap 322, the object has nearly exited the collision zone before the vehicle enters the collision zone), and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle would yield to the object based on the time-space overlap 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle enters the yield area, and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dede and Foster teaches the method of claim 19. Foster further teaches wherein the determining the driving strategy comprises: before entering the safety area, reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed associated with the merging section (see at least, [0618] When the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a zipper merge lane…the in-vehicle control computer
150 may adjust its speed, while respecting the ramp speed limit, in the ramp meter lane so that it can find sufficient lateral gap to merge into the freeway lane); determining, based on an average speed of vehicles from a start point of the safety area to an end point of the merging section, the speed of the vehicle (see at least, [0448] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can also be configured to detect the speed of vehicles that are located in front, to the right, and to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105...in response, dynamically slow down the speed of the autonomous vehicle 105 to maintain a higher than normal following distance of a predetermined amount) ; and stopping, based on the vehicle entering the stop area, the vehicle to allow the other vehicle to enter a main part of the road (see at least, [0616] If the autonomous vehicle 105 is in a tapered lane entry ramp, the in-vehicle control computer 150 may yield to a vehicle in the lane where the autonomous vehicle 105 is merging into when the vehicle's bumper is ahead of the bumper of the autonomous vehicle 105…it may stop).
The combination does not explicitly teach detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle enters the yield area; reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area. However, Dax teaches this limitation.
Dax teaches detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle on the merging section enters the yield area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle arrives in the collision zone after the object. In the time-space overlap 322, the object has nearly exited the collision zone before the vehicle enters the collision zone), and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area (see at least, [0051] the vehicle would yield to the object based on the time-space overlap 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Dede and Foster to include detecting another vehicle expected to arrive at an end point of the merging section before the vehicle enters the yield area, and reducing the speed of the vehicle to a speed lower than a speed associated with the safety area as taught by Dax so that the amount of space between the vehicle and the object is reduced during and after the merge takes place (while maintaining a safe distance), and the likelihood of the vehicle blocking the junction is reduced (Dax, [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662