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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 06/11/2026.
Claims 1-18 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-18 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493), further in view of Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”).
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493) and Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”), further in view of Moskowitz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0063162).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493) and Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”), further in view of Kudo (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0008985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle.” Similarly, claim 7 recites “determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command” and claim 13 recites “determine that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle.” As written, it is unclear what parameters define the responsive condition. For example, the claim merely recites performing a responsive step without expressly reciting that the responsive step is based on the determination. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “responsively executing” step may occur independent from the determining step. Because the limitation is subject to multiple possible interpretations, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493), further in view of Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”).
Regarding claim 1, Kishida discloses a method comprising:
wirelessly receiving a control command at a first vehicle of a plurality of vehicles; (Kishida ¶ 22 discloses that the vehicle performs wireless communication with a control center 200 using wireless communication unit 105, and “receives instruction information such as stop, start, entry, and exit of the vehicle 100 from the control center 200”)
executing the control command at a first location of the first vehicle; (Kishida ¶ 35 “the vehicle 100-a further advances along the route 310 upon receiving a start instruction from the control center 200”)
wirelessly broadcasting the control command from the first vehicle, including the first location; (Kishida ¶ 24 discloses that the “current position information acquired by the host vehicle position estimation unit 104” is “sequentially transmitted [i.e., wirelessly broadcasted] to the control center 200 via the wireless communication unit 105,” and “If the vehicle 100 has received the stop instruction from the control center 200 in Step 407 ... the vehicle 100 stops and transmits information indicating the stopping position to the control center 200,” see ¶¶ 47 and 49. Also see Fig. 4.)
wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command at a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; (Kishida Fig. 3 depicts vehicles 100-a to 100e, wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e performs wireless communication [i.e., wirelessly receiving broadcasted information] with the control center 200,” wherein the wireless communication includes “instruction information such as stop, start, entry, and exit of the vehicle 100 from the control center 200,” see ¶ 22)
Kishida does not expressly disclose:
determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle; and
repeating the wirelessly receiving the control command, wirelessly broadcasting the control command, wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command; and
determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received.
However, Lin discloses:
determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle; and (Lin ¶ 47 discloses determining “a location of the autonomous vehicle 328 on a map, and provide location information to determine positions of obstacles or events in data captured by the one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle 32822,” such that “As the second vehicle 110 receives the data 116 from the first vehicle 102, the second vehicle 110 can modify a trajectory of the second vehicle 110 based on the expectation that the bicycle 108 may be present on the road 102,” see ¶ 22, the location of the second vehicle corresponding to the location of the obstacle, thereby determining that the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location, wherein the “the origin of the data can refer to a location of the obstacle 204, for example, determined by the first vehicle 202,” see ¶ 28. Specifically, “the first vehicle 110 may turn a corner of the road 104 and encounter an obstacle, such as a couch (not illustrated in FIG. 1), in the middle of the road 104” and “In response to the triggering event, the first vehicle 102 may send the data 116 associated with the obstacle to the second vehicle 110,” such that “the second vehicle 110, upon receiving the data 116, can control motion of the second vehicle 110 based on the obstacle,” see ¶ 23. Further, “the data 116 may be transmitted to vehicles proximate to the first vehicle 102 (e.g., to the second vehicle 110),” and “the data 116 may include the presence of the obstacle, a classification of the obstacle, a location of the obstacle, a route taken by the first vehicle 102 to avoid the obstacle [i.e., the control command],” see ¶ 23.)
repeating the wirelessly receiving the control command, wirelessly broadcasting the control command, wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command; and (Lin in at least ¶ 10 discloses that vehicles may continuously transmit data to other vehicles, wherein “the transmission 210 may be specifically addressed to the second vehicle 212, or the transmission 210 may be received by any vehicle, and may be received by the second vehicle 212,” wherein the transmission includes commands for navigating the vehicle [i.e., control commands], see at least ¶ 77 and Fig. 5, the second vehicle thereby repeating wireless reception of the broadcast control command.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the detection of a second vehicle of Kishida with determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle, as disclosed by Lin, with reasonable expectation of success, to increase a confidence level of the accuracy of information (Lin ¶ 36) and improve the safety, trajectory planning, efficiency, etc. of autonomous vehicles traversing through environments (Lin ¶ 15) for improved segmentation, perception, and planning (Lin ¶ 49), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Barrera discloses:
determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received. (Barrera ¶ 58 discloses that “The vehicle may then continue along the route according to steps 306 and 308 until the controller 102 detects 314 that it has arrived at the parking spot at the end of the received path 124b,” wherein the vehicle is controlled by controller 102 to “autonomously drive the vehicle,” see ¶ 30, and the autonomous driving of the vehicle “relies on location (e.g., Global Positioning System) tracking” see ¶ 13)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the repeated steps of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to incorporate determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received, as disclosed by Barrera, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow for enhanced autonomous vehicle parking within indoor structures (Barrera ¶ 22), and to provide guidance and help avoid wrong turns (Barrera ¶ 60), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the repeated wireless reception of the broadcast control command of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to include repeating the determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, as disclosed by Barrera, to facilitate the determination of the vehicle's orientation and to relate measured acceleration and turning of the vehicle to a distance and direction traveled (Barrera ¶ 26), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
responsive to receiving the command indicating the stop at the second vehicle (Kishida ¶ 34 “When encountering the other vehicle 100-e at a position 305 in the middle of the route 310, the vehicle 100-a receives a stop instruction from the control center 200”), determining that the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location modified by an offset associated with the second vehicle and responsively executing a stop of the second vehicle. (Kishida ¶ 34 discloses that “At this time [i.e., corresponding to the location of the second vehicle], the vehicle 100-a determines whether or not the position 305 is a null point, and stops at the position 305 if it is not the null point. When it is determined as the null point, the vehicle 100-a moves to a position [i.e., modified by an offset] where the vehicle 100-a has escaped the null point.” Also see Fig. 3.)
Regarding claim 3, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
wirelessly receiving a broadcast control command, from the first vehicle, indicating a park maneuver subsequent to the stop and (Kishida ¶ 22 discloses that the vehicle performs wireless communication with a control center 200 using wireless communication unit 105, and receiving “a stop instruction from control center 200,” and “stops and transmits [i.e., wirelessly broadcasting] information indicating the stopping position [i.e., the control command],” see ¶¶ 47 and 49. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stopping and transmitting indicates that the transmitting occurs subsequent to the stop.)
responsively executing, in the second vehicle, the park maneuver at the location of the second vehicle resulting from the stop. (Kishida ¶¶ 34-36 discloses “encountering the other vehicle 100-e at a position 305 in the middle of the route 310,” and that “Thereafter, the vehicle 100-a further advances along the route 310 upon receiving a start instruction from the control center 200” where “the vehicle 100-a is parked at the designated parking position 307 upon receiving a start instruction for parking.”)
Regarding claim 6, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least GPS coordinates of the second vehicle. (Kishida ¶ 21 discloses that “The host vehicle position estimation unit 104 estimates a current position of the vehicle 100 from information such as a global positioning system (GPS),” wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32 and corresponding Fig. 1 which depicts the host vehicle position estimation unit 104 positioned within each vehicle [i.e., the second vehicle])
Regarding claim 7, Kishida discloses the system comprising a plurality of non-transitory storage mediums storing instructions, at least a first non-transitory storage medium of the plurality included in a first vehicle of a plurality of vehicles and at least a second non-transitory storage medium of the plurality included in at least one second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (Kishida ¶ 39), wherein, upon execution of the instructions stored by the first non-transitory storage medium by at least one processor of the first vehicle, the at least one processor of the first vehicle is configured to perform a method comprising:
wirelessly receiving a control command at a first vehicle of a plurality of vehicles; (Kishida ¶ 22 discloses that the vehicle performs wireless communication with a control center 200 using wireless communication unit 105, and “receives instruction information such as stop, start, entry, and exit of the vehicle 100 from the control center 200”)
executing the control command at a first location; (Kishida ¶ 35 “the vehicle 100-a further advances along the route 310 upon receiving a start instruction from the control center 200”)
wirelessly broadcasting the control command, including the first location; and (Kishida ¶ 24 discloses that the “current position information acquired by the host vehicle position estimation unit 104” is “sequentially transmitted [i.e., wirelessly broadcasted] to the control center 200 via the wireless communication unit 105,” and “If the vehicle 100 has received the stop instruction from the control center 200 in Step 407 ... the vehicle 100 stops and transmits information indicating the stopping position to the control center 200,” see ¶¶ 47 and 49. Also see Fig. 4.)
repeating the wirelessly receiving the control command, (Kishida ¶ 46 discloses that “the vehicle 100 moves along the travel route 310 in the parking facility while repeating the processing up to Step 407”), executing the control command, (Kishida ¶ 32 discloses that “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e performs wireless communication with the control center 200, travels in the parking facility 301 by automatic driving, and is caused to enter or exit a parking spot by automated valet parking [i.e. executing the control command]”), wirelessly broadcasting the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received; and (Kishida ¶¶ 47 and 49 disclose that vehicle 100 receives a stop instruction from control center 200, and “stops and transmits [i.e., wirelessly broadcasting] information indicating the stopping position [i.e., the control command].” Kishida Fig. 4 depicts that the process continues until the parking is completed.)
wherein upon execution of the instructions stored by at least the second non- transitory storage medium by at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle including at least the second non-transitory storage medium ... (Kishida Fig. 1 and ¶ 32 “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1”), repeating the wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command and (Kishida ¶ 46 discloses that “the vehicle 100 moves along the travel route 310 in the parking facility while repeating the processing up to Step 407.”)
Kishida does not expressly disclose:
the at least one processor of the second vehicle is configured to perform a method comprising: wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command at a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles;
determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command; and
repeating the wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command and determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received.
However, Lin discloses:
the at least one processor of the second vehicle is configured to perform a method comprising: wirelessly receiving the broadcast control command at a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; (Lin ¶ 16 discloses that “As the disabled vehicle comes into view of the sensors of the autonomous vehicle, ... the autonomous vehicle receiving data transmitted from other vehicles may determine actions of the vehicle based at least in part on the data and/or the confidence level associated with the data,” also see ¶ 23 “the data 116 may include the presence of the obstacle, a classification of the obstacle, a location of the obstacle, a route taken by the first vehicle 102 to avoid the obstacle, etc. Thus, the second vehicle 110, upon receiving the data 116, can control motion of the second vehicle 110 based on the obstacle.” Also see ¶ 27.)
determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command; and (Lin ¶ 47 discloses determining “a location of the autonomous vehicle 328 on a map, and provide location information to determine positions of obstacles or events in data captured by the one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle 32822,” such that “As the second vehicle 110 receives the data 116 from the first vehicle 102, the second vehicle 110 can modify a trajectory of the second vehicle 110 based on the expectation that the bicycle 108 may be present on the road 102,” see ¶ 22, the location of the second vehicle corresponding to the location of the obstacle, thereby determining that the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location, wherein the “the origin of the data can refer to a location of the obstacle 204, for example, determined by the first vehicle 202,” see ¶ 28. Specifically, “the first vehicle 110 may turn a corner of the road 104 and encounter an obstacle, such as a couch (not illustrated in FIG. 1), in the middle of the road 104” and “In response to the triggering event, the first vehicle 102 may send the data 116 associated with the obstacle to the second vehicle 110,” such that “the second vehicle 110, upon receiving the data 116, can control motion of the second vehicle 110 based on the obstacle,” see ¶ 23. Further, “the data 116 may be transmitted to vehicles proximate to the first vehicle 102 (e.g., to the second vehicle 110),” and “the data 116 may include the presence of the obstacle, a classification of the obstacle, a location of the obstacle, a route taken by the first vehicle 102 to avoid the obstacle [i.e., the control command],” see ¶ 23.)
repeating wireless reception of the broadcast control command ... (Lin in at least ¶ 10 discloses that vehicles may continuously transmit data to other vehicles, wherein “the transmission 210 may be specifically addressed to the second vehicle 212, or the transmission 210 may be received by any vehicle, and may be received by the second vehicle 212,” wherein the transmission includes commands for navigating the vehicle [i.e., control commands], see at least ¶ 77 and Fig. 5, the second vehicle thereby repeating wireless reception of the broadcast control command.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the detection of a second vehicle of Kishida with determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle, as disclosed by Lin, with reasonable expectation of success, to increase a confidence level of the accuracy of information (Lin ¶ 36) and improve the safety, trajectory planning, efficiency, etc. of autonomous vehicles traversing through environments (Lin ¶ 15) for improved segmentation, perception, and planning (Lin ¶ 49), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Barrera discloses:
... and determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands broadcast by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received by the processor of the at least one second vehicle. (Barrera ¶ 58 discloses that “The vehicle may then continue along the route according to steps 306 and 308 until the controller 102 detects 314 that it has arrived at the parking spot at the end of the received path 124b [i.e., a command indicating a stop],” wherein the vehicle is controlled by controller 102 to “autonomously drive the vehicle,” see ¶ 30, and the autonomous driving of the vehicle “relies on location (e.g., Global Positioning System) tracking” see ¶ 13. Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the repeated steps of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to incorporate determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received, as disclosed by Barrera, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow for enhanced autonomous vehicle parking within indoor structures (Barrera ¶ 22), and to provide guidance and help avoid wrong turns (Barrera ¶ 60), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the repeated wireless reception of the broadcast control command of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to include repeating the determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, as disclosed by Barrera, to facilitate the determination of the vehicle's orientation and to relate measured acceleration and turning of the vehicle to a distance and direction traveled (Barrera ¶ 26), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 8, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 9, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 12, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 13, Kishida discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of vehicles including at least a first, lead vehicle and a one or more second vehicles; (Kishida ¶ 67 discloses that “The control center 200 accumulates the reception signal intensity and the arrangement information of the vehicles parked in the parking facility 301” wherein the vehicles include 100-a to 100-e, see ¶¶ 32-34)
wherein a processor of the first vehicle is configured to: wirelessly receive a control command; (Kishida ¶ 22 discloses that the vehicle performs wireless communication with a control center 200 using wireless communication unit 105, and “receives instruction information such as stop, start, entry, and exit of the vehicle 100 from the control center 200”)
execute the control command at a first location of the first vehicle; (Kishida ¶ 35 “the vehicle 100-a further advances along the route 310 upon receiving a start instruction from the control center 200”)
wirelessly broadcasting the control command from the first vehicle, including the first location; and (Kishida ¶ 24 discloses that the “current position information acquired by the host vehicle position estimation unit 104” is “sequentially transmitted [i.e., wirelessly broadcasted] to the control center 200 via the wireless communication unit 105,” and “If the vehicle 100 has received the stop instruction from the control center 200 in Step 407 ... the vehicle 100 stops and transmits information indicating the stopping position to the control center 200,” see ¶¶ 47 and 49. Also see Fig. 4.)
Kishida does not expressly disclose:
wherein a processor of at least one of the one or more second vehicles is configured to: wirelessly receive the broadcast control command at a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles;
determine that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle; and
repeat wireless reception of the broadcast control command and determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands broadcast by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received by the processor of the at least one second vehicle.
However, Lin discloses:
wherein a processor of at least one of the one or more second vehicles is configured to: wirelessly receive the broadcast control command at a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; (Lin ¶ 16 discloses that “As the disabled vehicle comes into view of the sensors of the autonomous vehicle, ... the autonomous vehicle receiving data transmitted from other vehicles may determine actions of the vehicle based at least in part on the data and/or the confidence level associated with the data,” also see ¶ 23 “the data 116 may include the presence of the obstacle, a classification of the obstacle, a location of the obstacle, a route taken by the first vehicle 102 to avoid the obstacle, etc. Thus, the second vehicle 110, upon receiving the data 116, can control motion of the second vehicle 110 based on the obstacle.” Also see ¶ 27.)
determine that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle; and (Lin ¶ 47 discloses determining “a location of the autonomous vehicle 328 on a map, and provide location information to determine positions of obstacles or events in data captured by the one or more sensors of the autonomous vehicle 32822,” such that “As the second vehicle 110 receives the data 116 from the first vehicle 102, the second vehicle 110 can modify a trajectory of the second vehicle 110 based on the expectation that the bicycle 108 may be present on the road 102,” see ¶ 22, the location of the second vehicle corresponding to the location of the obstacle, thereby determining that the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location, wherein the “the origin of the data can refer to a location of the obstacle 204, for example, determined by the first vehicle 202,” see ¶ 28. Specifically, “the first vehicle 110 may turn a corner of the road 104 and encounter an obstacle, such as a couch (not illustrated in FIG. 1), in the middle of the road 104” and “In response to the triggering event, the first vehicle 102 may send the data 116 associated with the obstacle to the second vehicle 110,” such that “the second vehicle 110, upon receiving the data 116, can control motion of the second vehicle 110 based on the obstacle,” see ¶ 23. Further, “the data 116 may be transmitted to vehicles proximate to the first vehicle 102 (e.g., to the second vehicle 110),” and “the data 116 may include the presence of the obstacle, a classification of the obstacle, a location of the obstacle, a route taken by the first vehicle 102 to avoid the obstacle [i.e., the control command],” see ¶ 23.)
repeat wireless reception of the broadcast control command ... (Lin in at least ¶ 10 discloses that vehicles may continuously transmit data to other vehicles, wherein “the transmission 210 may be specifically addressed to the second vehicle 212, or the transmission 210 may be received by any vehicle, and may be received by the second vehicle 212,” wherein the transmission includes commands for navigating the vehicle [i.e., control commands], see at least ¶ 77 and Fig. 5, the second vehicle thereby repeating wireless reception of the broadcast control command.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the detection of a second vehicle of Kishida with determining that a location of the second vehicle corresponds to the first location and responsively executing the control command in the second vehicle, as disclosed by Lin, with reasonable expectation of success, to increase a confidence level of the accuracy of information (Lin ¶ 36) and improve the safety, trajectory planning, efficiency, etc. of autonomous vehicles traversing through environments (Lin ¶ 15) for improved segmentation, perception, and planning (Lin ¶ 49), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Barrera discloses:
... and determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands broadcast by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received by the processor of the at least one second vehicle. (Barrera ¶ 58 discloses that “The vehicle may then continue along the route according to steps 306 and 308 until the controller 102 detects 314 that it has arrived at the parking spot at the end of the received path 124b [i.e., a command indicating a stop],” wherein the vehicle is controlled by controller 102 to “autonomously drive the vehicle,” see ¶ 30, and the autonomous driving of the vehicle “relies on location (e.g., Global Positioning System) tracking” see ¶ 13. Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the repeated steps of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to incorporate determining location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, for a sequence of control commands received by the first vehicle, until a command indicating a stop is received, as disclosed by Barrera, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow for enhanced autonomous vehicle parking within indoor structures (Barrera ¶ 22), and to provide guidance and help avoid wrong turns (Barrera ¶ 60), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the repeated wireless reception of the broadcast control command of Lin, of the combination of Kishida and Lin, to include repeating the determination of location correspondence and responsive execution of the control command, as disclosed by Barrera, to facilitate the determination of the vehicle's orientation and to relate measured acceleration and turning of the vehicle to a distance and direction traveled (Barrera ¶ 26), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 14, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 15, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 18, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493) and Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”), further in view of Moskowitz et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0063162).
Regarding claim 4, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein:
the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined second start location of the second vehicle offset from a predefined first start location of the first vehicle by a predefined offset, and
wherein the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the location of the first vehicle based on the second vehicle traveling a same distance as the first vehicle plus the offset.
However, Moskowitz discloses
the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined second start location of the second vehicle offset from a predefined first start location of the first vehicle by a predefined offset, and (Moskowitz ¶ 345 discloses a process that includes “determining an autonomous steering action for the host vehicle based on a difference between the expected lateral distance to the at least one lane mark and the determined actual lateral distance to the at least one lane mark,” wherein the difference indicates an error, in which “error information may be indicative of a correction to be applied to a position determined by a device (such as ... target vehicle 2722 [i.e., second vehicle],” see ¶ 389)
wherein the location of the second vehicle corresponds to the location of the first vehicle based on the second vehicle traveling a same distance as the first vehicle plus the offset. (Moskowitz ¶ 389 discloses that the correction to be applied to the error may be represented “as a translation vector (e.g., represented as a change in longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, etc.), a translation distance and an orientation (e.g., based on a compass direction, an angle relative to a bearing direction, etc.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the positioning of the vehicles of Kishida with a location of the second vehicle being determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined second start location of the second vehicle offset from a predefined first start location of the first vehicle by a predefined offset, as disclosed by Moskowitz, with reasonable expectation of success, because a position determined using the sparse map may have a greater accuracy than a position determined using a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), which may be beneficial for navigation purposes (Moskowitz ¶ 347), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 10, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera and Moskowitz discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 16, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera and Moskowitz discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishida (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0298834) in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0174493) and Perez Barrera et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0062243, and hereinafter, “Barrera”), further in view of Kudo (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0008985).
Regarding claim 5, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein:
the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined trip-start location wirelessly triggered for each of the first and second vehicles so that all of the first and second vehicles begin tracking distance traveled at the same geographic location.
However, Kudo discloses:
the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined trip-start location wirelessly triggered for each of the first and second vehicles so that all of the first and second vehicles begin tracking distance traveled at the same geographic location. (Kudo ¶ 67 discloses that “when the GPS receiving section 28 cannot receive a GPS signal in a tunnel or the like, a distance from the starting point obtained from the monitoring device 11 is used as the current position of the railway vehicle 100,” wherein such non-communicable zone 201 “may be determined based on basic information that ... another vehicle [i.e., a second vehicle] such as the same type traveled”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the positioning of the vehicles of Kishida with the location of the second vehicle is determined based on at least distance traveled from a predefined trip-start location wirelessly triggered for each of the first and second vehicles so that all of the first and second vehicles begin tracking distance traveled at the same geographic location, as disclosed by Kudo, with reasonable expectation of success, so that real-time performance is high and omission of information is reduced (Kudo ¶ 45), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 11, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera and Kudo discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kishida further discloses “at least one processor of the at least one second vehicle” (Kishida ¶ 39 and Fig. 1, and wherein “Each of the vehicles 100-a to 100-e has the configuration illustrated in FIG. 1,” see ¶ 32)
Regarding claim 17, Kishida in combination with Lin and Barrera and Kudo discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Furuta (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0382185) discloses a position estimation device including an ECU configured to estimate the position of a vehicle using at least a traveled distance of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights