DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-22 are considered in this office action. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-22 are pending examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards 102/103 rejection. The applicant argues “Pendleton's disclosure regarding "merge" is fundamentally different from the "lane segment that diverges or merges within the path" recited in amended claim 1. Pendleton is directed to navigating multi-way stop intersections and discloses determining whether an autonomous vehicle "is clear to safely merge into a travel lane corresponding to the planned travel path." See Pendleton, Abstract. As described in Pendleton, this involves determining whether the autonomous vehicle can safely merge (not a lane segment) into a travel lane after navigating through a multi-way stop intersection. Id. That is, safe lane-change merging after the intersection has already been identified and the vehicle is proceeding through it. See Pendleton, Col. 12, Lines 7-17.
Notably, the determination of whether Pendleton's autonomous vehicle can safely merge into a travel lane does not mean Pendleton's travel lane has a lane segment that diverges or merges. Indeed, Pendleton does not teach or suggest its travel lane has a lane attribute that "diverges or merges" within a path of Pendleton's autonomous vehicle.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. The applicant is arguing totally different subject matter by stating Pendleton’s disclosure regarding merge is fundamentally different from the amended claim 1. Here the amended portion is: “determine, from the map information and based on the location of the vehicle, a lane segment that diverges or merges within the path of the vehicle; determine, within the region of interest, the intersection that comprises the lane segment” …and control…an operation of the vehicle. Pendleton clearly discloses in Col.11 L 60-Col.12 L6: “The planning module 404 also receives data representing the AV position 418 from the localization module 408. The localization module 408 determines the AV position by using data from the sensors 121 and data from the database module 410 (e.g., a geographic data) to calculate a position. For example, the localization module 408 uses data from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sensor and geographic data to calculate a longitude and latitude of the AV. In an embodiment, data used by the localization module 408 includes high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as traffic speed, traffic volume, the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic directions, or lane marker types and locations, or combinations of them), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs or other travel signals of various types.” Here lane marker/ lane traffic directions are being interpreted as lane segment that diverges and merges. And hence using these information the vehicle of Pendelton is being controlled (Col.12 : “The control module 406 receives the data representing the trajectory 414 and the data representing the AV position 418 and operates the control functions 420 a-c (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV 100 to travel the trajectory 414 to the destination 412.”) to cross the four way stop just as the pending application is describing in specification and is claiming in the claims. The applicant again repeats similar argument of: “Notably, the determination of whether Pendleton's autonomous vehicle can safely merge into a travel lane does not mean Pendleton's travel lane has a lane segment that diverges or merges. Indeed, Pendleton does not teach or suggest its travel lane has a lane attribute that "diverges or merges" within a path of Pendleton's autonomous vehicle.” The examiner respectfully thinks contrary of the applicant’s thinking. The Pendleton reference uses lane markings which can represent lane merging /diverging /turning to control the vehicle in view of broadest reasonable interpretation.
The examiner believes he has responded to all the arguments presented by the applicant at this time. However, if the applicant believes that the examiner has missed any arguments to respond, the applicant is invited to call the examiner directly to expedite the process.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the determination steps are being done once the control of vehicle is performed. The applicant is advised to bring the determination steps before the control step to make it logical. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 3-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pendleton (US12269473B2) and herein after will be referred as Pendleton.
Regarding Claim 1, Pendleton teaches a vehicle control device of a vehicle (Fig.4 #406 Col.11 Line 23-31: “FIG. 4 shows an example architecture 400 for an autonomous vehicle (e.g., the AV 100 shown in FIG. 1). The architecture 400 includes a perception module 402 (sometimes referred to as a perception circuit), a planning module 404 (sometimes referred to as a planning circuit), a control module 406 (sometimes referred to as a control circuit), a localization module 408 (sometimes referred to as a localization circuit), and a database module 410 (sometimes referred to as a database circuit).”), the vehicle control device comprising:
memory configured to store map information (Col.7 Line 3-13: “In an embodiment, memory 144 is similar to the main memory 306 described below. In an embodiment, the data storage unit 142 and memory 144 store historical, real-time, and/or predictive information about the environment 190. In an embodiment, the stored information includes maps, driving performance, traffic congestion updates or weather conditions. In an embodiment, data relating to the environment 190 is transmitted to the AV 100 via a communications channel from a remotely located database 134.”);
a sensor configured to determine at least a location of the vehicle or a heading of the vehicle (Col.6 Line 52-62: “In an embodiment, the AV system 120 includes sensors 121 for measuring or inferring properties of state or condition of the AV 100, such as the AV's position, linear and angular velocity and acceleration, and heading (e.g., an orientation of the leading end of AV 100). Example of sensors 121 are GPS, inertial measurement units (IMU) that measure both vehicle linear accelerations and angular rates, wheel speed sensors for measuring or estimating wheel slip ratios, wheel brake pressure or braking torque sensors, engine torque or wheel torque sensors, and steering angle and angular rate sensors.” and also See Col.11 Line 23-26)
and a processor configured to: determine, based on at least one of the location of the vehicle or the heading of the vehicle, an intersection on a path of the vehicle; determine, based on the map information, a region of interest that comprises the intersection; determine, based on at least one of a traffic lane in the region of interest or a lane attribute of the traffic lane, an intersection attribute of the intersection (Col.11 Line 56- Col.12 Line 6 : “The planning module 404 also receives data representing the AV position 418 from the localization module 408. The localization module 408 determines the AV position by using data from the sensors 121 and data from the database module 410 (e.g., a geographic data) to calculate a position. For example, the localization module 408 uses data from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sensor and geographic data to calculate a longitude and latitude of the AV. In an embodiment, data used by the localization module 408 includes high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as traffic speed, traffic volume, the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic directions, or lane marker types and locations, or combinations of them), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs or other travel signals of various types.”);
Pendleton also teaches determine, from the map information and based on the location of the vehicle, a lane segment that diverges or merges within the path of the vehicle; determine, within the region of interest, the intersection that comprises the lane segment (Col.11 Line 60-Col.12 Line 6: “The planning module 404 also receives data representing the AV position 418 from the localization module 408. The localization module 408 determines the AV position by using data from the sensors 121 and data from the database module 410 (e.g., a geographic data) to calculate a position. For example, the localization module 408 uses data from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sensor and geographic data to calculate a longitude and latitude of the AV. In an embodiment, data used by the localization module 408 includes high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as traffic speed, traffic volume, the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic directions, or lane marker types and locations, or combinations of them), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs or other travel signals of various types”).
and control, based on the intersection attribute, an operation of the vehicle (Col.12 L7-17 : “The control module 406 receives the data representing the trajectory 414 and the data representing the AV position 418 and operates the control functions 420 a-c (e.g., steering, throttling, braking, ignition) of the AV in a manner that will cause the AV 100 to travel the trajectory 414 to the destination 412. For example, if the trajectory 414 includes a left turn, the control module 406 will operate the control functions 420 a-c in a manner such that the steering angle of the steering function will cause the AV 100 to turn left and the throttling and braking will cause the AV 100 to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles before the turn is made.” Also See Figures 13A-L displaying multiple scenarios for controlling the host vehicle at Fourways stop sign.).
Similarly Claim 13 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 3, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 1.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on at least one of a starting point of a second lane segment or an end point of the lane segment, the lane attribute, and wherein the second lane segment comprises a portion, of the traffic lane in which the vehicle is traveling, that is inside the region of interest (Figures 13J-L).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly Claim 15 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 4, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 3.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a first vector tangent to the second lane segment at the starting point of the second lane segment; determine a second vector tangent to the second lane segment at the end point of the second lane segment; and determine, based on an angle between the first vector and the second vector, whether the path of the vehicle along the second lane segment is straight (Fig.13 E #1310).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly Claim 16 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 5, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 4.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on a cross product of the first vector and the second vector, whether the path of the vehicle comprises a left turn or a right turn (Fig. 13I).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Similarly Claim 17 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 7, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 1.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine drivable lanes within the intersection; and determine directed graphs respectively corresponding to the drivable lanes (Fig.10).
PNG
media_image4.png
392
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly Claim 19 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 8, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 7.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on a quantity of the directed graphs, a type of the intersection (Col.17 Line 24-38; “As shown in FIG. 13A, AV 100 is stopped at a primary stopline 1308 of the intersection. The primary stopline 1308 is a real or virtual line where a vehicle is expected to stop at the intersection. For example, the primary stopline 1308 corresponds to the expected stopping position as designated by stop sign 1304 and stop road marking 1306. Based on destination of AV 100, AV system 120 determines a planned travel path 1310 of AV 100 through the intersection (e.g., a path the AV 100 is expected to take from the stopline 1308 to an exit of the intersection based on the destination of AV 100). The AV system 120 can also determine a travel lane 1312 corresponding to (e.g., overlapping, nearest to) the planned travel path 1310. In some embodiments, the travel lane 1312 corresponds to one or more lanes of the roadway where the AV 100 is planning to go.”).
Similarly Claim 20 is rejected on the similar rational.
Regarding Claim 9, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 8.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the type of the intersection comprises at least one of: a three-way intersection, a three-way intersection without a left turn, a four-way intersection, a five-way intersection, a roundabout, an overpass, or an underpass (Col.11 Line 56-Col.2 Line 6: “The planning module 404 also receives data representing the AV position 418 from the localization module 408. The localization module 408 determines the AV position by using data from the sensors 121 and data from the database module 410 (e.g., a geographic data) to calculate a position. For example, the localization module 408 uses data from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sensor and geographic data to calculate a longitude and latitude of the AV. In an embodiment, data used by the localization module 408 includes high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as traffic speed, traffic volume, the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic directions, or lane marker types and locations, or combinations of them), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs or other travel signals of various types.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 8.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the intersection attribute by: determining the intersection attribute based on the lane attribute and the type of the intersection (Col.11 Line 56-Col.2 Line 6: “The planning module 404 also receives data representing the AV position 418 from the localization module 408. The localization module 408 determines the AV position by using data from the sensors 121 and data from the database module 410 (e.g., a geographic data) to calculate a position. For example, the localization module 408 uses data from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) sensor and geographic data to calculate a longitude and latitude of the AV. In an embodiment, data used by the localization module 408 includes high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties, maps describing road network connectivity properties, maps describing roadway physical properties (such as traffic speed, traffic volume, the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic directions, or lane marker types and locations, or combinations of them), and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs or other travel signals of various types.”)..
Regarding Claim 12, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 1.
Pendleton also teaches wherein the sensor comprises at least one of: a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or a magnetometer (Col.11 Line 56-64).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pendleton in view Garimella et al. (US2021/0004611) in view of Dorum (US9766081) and herein after will be referred as Dorum.
Regarding Claim 11, Pendleton teaches the vehicle control device of claim 8.
Pendleton does not expressly teach the processor is configured to determine the intersection attribute by: determining, based on the lane attribute successively indicating a plurality of left turns, that the lane attribute further indicates a loop; and determining, based on the lane attribute indicating the loop, that the intersection attribute indicates a roundabout.
Garimella teaches generating a bounding box containing the intersection, identifying drivable lanes within the bounding box (Fig.3).
Dorum teaches the processor is configured to determine the intersection attribute by: determining, based on the lane attribute successively indicating a plurality of left turns, that the lane attribute further indicates a loop (Col.10 Line 34-43: “At act 2009, the mobile device 122 performs a vector fit for the subset of probe data points for the potential roundabout location. A vector field fit method is performed on the selected vector probe data to intrinsically capture circulation in vector fields. When circulation a vector field is present, the center is a circular singularity point that can be derived from the vector field. Circular singularities in the flow pattern can denote the approximate center of the roundabout. For example, a least squares vector field fit may be used. Other vector field fit methods may be used.”);
and determining, based on the lane attribute indicating the loop, that the intersection attribute indicates a roundabout (Col.10 Line 44-53: “At act 2011, the mobile device 122 determines a roundabout location from the vector fit. The vector fit approximation can be used to determine a circular singularity location and direction of flow (i.e, clockwise or counter clockwise) for the vector fit approximation. The circular singularity location corresponds with the approximate center of a roundabout and the direction of flow corresponds to traffic flow through the roundabout. The optimal center of the roundabout may be determined using a technique such as least median of squares (LMS).”).
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 Pendleton to incorporate the teachings of Garimella and Dorum to include generating a bounding box containing the intersection, identifying drivable lanes within the bounding box and the processor is configured to determine the intersection attribute by: determining, based on the lane attribute successively indicating a plurality of left turns, that the lane attribute further indicates a loop; and determining, based on the lane attribute indicating the loop, that the intersection attribute indicates a roundabout. Doing so would optimize the vehicle operation going through a roundabout.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 18, 21 and 22 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights