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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2025, 01/07/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, these claims recite the limitation of determining “one or more first factors associated with a first pullover spot” and “one or more second factors associated with a second pullover that is different than the first pullover spot”; these limitations are new matter not supported by the original specification as filed.
The applicant’s specification does not contain any explicit reference to “factors” or a “factor” of a pullover spot, additionally there is no distinction of mention of a “first” and “second” pullover spots; further while there are reference to “parameters”(in [0067] of the applicant’s specification), they are disclosed as part of the cost of a pullover spot for penalizing the cost of a pullover spot; “Factor” is broader in the sense that it could be any aspect of a hypothetical spot and includes those which for example would be positive reasons to choose a pullover location and/or includes performing different determinations or calculations which wouldn’t be considered a “cost”; e.g. a true/false type determinations for determining if a potential pullover spot is valid pullover location or not.
Claims 2-3 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the invent tor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites that the first pull over location is determined prior to determining if the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle, the applicants original filed specification and claim sets do not contain grounds for such a limitation; in the specification the pullover spot(s) are determined responsive to determining that the autonomous vehicle will impede an emergency vehicle, there is no discussion or suggestion of pullover spots being identified prior to the determining that the autonomous vehicle impede an emergency vehicle.
Similarly claim 3 recites new subject matter not disclosed in the specification. There was found to be no disclosure of determining a second zone based on first factors (i.e. factors of a first zone). While there is general disclosure that multiple zones are determined and subsequently scored (given a cost value for each zone) there is no discussion of the cost value/factors of a first zone as contributing to the cost/values of a second zone; while it is conceivable that for a particular “factor” could be associated with multiple (first and second) pullover locations; that does not teach the same breadth as a “first” factor being used to determine a second pullover location.
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 1-19 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.
The applicant’s independent and various dependent claims of 1-19 recite limitations of “first” and “second” “factors”; neither the claims nor the specification contain any reference or definition as to what constitutes a “factor” of a spot; this is further compounded in that claim 4 recites the one or more first or second factors is “based on” if the first or second location would cause a road user to have to deviate out the lane to avoid the autonomous vehicle; when read in light of [0067] this is effectively teaching that the “one or more factors” are based “parameters” of a pullover location; by extension this means a “factor” is not a parameter but instead some extrapolation from a given parameter (or set of parameters (costs)); at which point it becomes unclear what is to constitute a “factor” of a pullover location, as the claims recite “one or more” factors for each location it would seem that the one or more “factors” is not the total “cost” (of [0067]) given that each pullover spot is understood to have only a singular cost as part of the evaluation/selection between pullover spots.
Claim 3 is additionally 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.
Regarding claim 3 it recites that the second pullover zone “based on one or more first factors”, however read in light of claim 1 due to its inheritance, this limitation renders the scope protection unclear in that the “first” factors are “associated” with the first pull over location and the “second” factors are “associated” with the second pullover location; however as claim 3 recites that the second pullover location determined “based on” a “first” factor then by definition this “first” factor is “associated” with the second pullover location in some fashion. Therefore the delineation between a “first” and “second” factors becomes unclear and renders the scope of claim 3 unclear as a whole (with the inherited limitations of claim 1) regarding what is a first versus second factor.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180334161 A1; Mizuno et al, “YEILDING ACTION ASSISTANCE SYSTEM”, and further in view of US 20180281817 A1, Ravichandran et al, “PROCESSING A REQUEST SIGNAL REGARDING OPERATION OF AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE”.
Regarding Claim 1, Mizuno et al teaches “A method comprising: determining, by one or more processors of an autonomous vehicle, whether the autonomous vehicle will impede an emergency vehicle detected by the autonomous vehicle based on an available road width and a width of the emergency vehicle;”( The road R shown in FIG. 1 is a single-lane road including a first lane L1 and a second lane L2 opposed to each other without a center divider. In the road R, the target zone Pe is set to a site at which an available width for the emergency vehicle Ve to overtake can be maintained wider than a width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve. Specifically, such available width can be calculated by subtracting a total width of a width (Wm) of the vehicle Vm and a width (Wo2) of the other vehicle Vo2 running on the oncoming second lane L2 from a total width (Wr) of the road R, as expressed by the following expression:
Available width=(Wr−(Wm+Wo2)); and
the available width (Wr−(Wm+Wo2)) is wider than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve, as expressed by the following inequality expression:
(Wr−(Wm+Wo2))>We.
[0040] In a case that the road R is divided by the center divider, the available width is calculated by subtracting the width (Wm) of the vehicle Vm from a width (Wr/2) of the first lane L1, as expressed by the following expression:
Available width=(Wr/2−Wm).
[0041] In this case, the target zone Pe is also set to a site at which the available width can be maintained wider than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve to satisfy the following inequality expression:
(Wr/2−Wm)>We.
[0042] However, if the available width (Wr−(Wm+Wo2)) is narrower than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve, and a distance between the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm and a stopping point Po2 of the other vehicle Vo2 in the oncoming second lane L2 in the direction of the road R is shorter than a length Le of the emergency vehicle Ve as illustrated in FIG. 3, it is difficult for the emergency vehicle Ve to pass between the vehicle Vm and the other vehicle Vo2. In order to avoid such disadvantage, the target zone determiner 3 is further configured to set the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to a site in the first lane L1 away from the stopping point Po2 in the oncoming second lane L2 more than the length Le of the emergency vehicle Ve.” Here Mizuno teaches when searching for a pull over location if it “will impede” an emergency vehicle based on available road width and emergency vehicle width);” and responsive to determining that the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle: determining, by the one or more processors, one or more first factors associated with a first pullover location;“( [0036] According to the present embodiment, the yielding action assistance system is installed at least partially in the vehicle Vm. The yielding action assistance system is configured to find a target zone Pe where the vehicle Vm stops or runs slowly to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve taking account of positional relationship among the emergency vehicle Ve and the other vehicles Vo, and guide the vehicle Vm to the target zone Pe. Specifically, the yielding action assistance system finds or selects the target zone Pe at a site where the vehicle Vm will not block the emergency vehicle Ve without interference with the other vehicles Vo, based on information about the emergency vehicle Ve, the other vehicles Vo, and the road R.” the setting of a first zone includes determining that the first zone does not block/infere with the emergency vehicle or other vehicles (i.e. one or more factors associated with the zone))
Mizuno varies however in that it identifies a first pullover location based on one or more first factors, and then monitors that locations/its corresponding factors and then may subsequently then update/determine a new pull over location in response to changing factors/conditions. As such it fails to teach pull over to either a first or second pull over location based on the factors of both those locations as recited in the claims.
Ravichandran et al teaches a similar autonomous vehicle system which responsive to detecting an emergency condition (which includes a presence of a nearby passing emergency vehicle [0096]) determines multiple (first and second) pull over locations which includes determining the corresponding factors for those locations (0006] Implementations may include data comprising an expected stopping time interval. The expected stopping time interval may have been indicated by an initiator of the request signal. The expected stopping time interval may be inferred by an algorithmic analysis on the request. The algorithmic analysis may comprise analysis of data associated with the request. The data may comprise traffic data, sensor data, or map data, or two or more of them. Analyzing the data may comprise evaluating quality of one or more target locations. The quality may be evaluated offline relative to the vehicle, or online when the vehicle is driving, or both. Evaluating of the quality may comprise computing a quality based on one or more of the following factors: an emergency condition, a location of the vehicle on the road network, a traffic speed, a traffic volume, a traffic composition, a lane choice, a blockage degree, a sightline from another vehicle, a distance from an intersection, presence of a dedicated lane, terrain, and a road slope. One or more of the factors can be represented by numerical values; each of the numerical values may be mapped to a pre-defined range. Computing the quality may include assigning weights to one or more of the factors. The weights may be based on one or more of the following: features of the request, a type of the vehicle, a regulation, a degree of urgency, and an expected stopping time interval. Some embodiments ignore a target location based on its quality value or information specifying its exclusion. Some cases may classify target locations in quality categories.” + [0008]) and responsive to the comparison of the factors at those locations then selects a particular pull over location among the plurality of locations and navigates the vehicle to the pull over location. ([0009] here teaches moving the vehicle to the target location autonomously + [0035] here teaches that the “target location” is/may be a stopping place (pull over location))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify , Mizuno et al to switch the singular pull over location determination to instead evaluated multiple stopping place locations and their respective quality in order to select a pull over location as taught by Ravichandran et al. One would be motivated to implement the multiple pull over location determinations and quality based selection of Ravichandran in order to improve the quality of the selected pull over location, reducing the likelihood that the autonomous vehicle would impede the emergency vehicle or other traffic, improving operation of the safety system of Mizuno. Ravichandran et al teaches this motivation in ([0014]-[0016] implicit to the use of “quality” is teaching that recognizing and subsequently selecting a potential pull over spot based on this quality is to ensure it is satisfactory in its function (i.e. avoids blocking the emergency vehicle/other vehicles, is safe, etc) )
Regarding Claim 3, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the second pullover location based on the one or more first factors.”(Ravichandran [0025] Implementations of analyzing the data may comprise applying a minimum quality threshold to identify one or more acceptable target locations. Computing the minimum quality threshold may be based on one or more of the following: a degree of urgency, an expected stopping time interval, and a conflicting rule. Analyzing the data may comprise identifying a region for choosing a target location. The region may comprise a drivable area or a non-drivable area or both. The region may comprise an area faced by a forward-facing side of the vehicle. The region may comprise a shape or a size or both. Determining the shape or the size may be based on a traffic condition or on a degree of urgency or on both. Determining the region may be based on qualities of one or more target locations.
[0026] Implementations may include expanding the region when no target location is identified, or updating the region based on a new location of the vehicle, or both.” Here Ravichandran teaches that if no valid quality target (pull over) location is identified then a new (second) location is searched (expanding the region); thus this second location would be determined based on the first factors (of the first target location) resulting in a first location being below a qualitythreshold)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is based on whether the first pullover location or the second pullover location would cause a road user to deviate from a current lane of traffic.”(Ravichandran [0123] “6. Degree of blockage. This is a measure of how much maneuvering would be required by other vehicles and other road users to avoid hitting the AV, if the AV system decides to stop at a particular target stopping place. In designated stopping places, such as parking lots and shoulders, the AV is likely to present no obstruction to other vehicles. For a stopping place at the edge of a road, where part of the stopping place is on a travel lane and part of the AV is outside a travel lane, other vehicles might require slight maneuvering (e.g., swerving) to avoid hitting the AV. If the AV system chooses to stop in the middle of a traffic lane, other vehicles would have to maneuver significantly (e.g., shift lanes) in order to avoid the AV. The degree of blockage may be represented, for example, as a fraction of a travel lane that is blocked by the stopped AV. A numerical value may be used; for example, a value of 0 indicates no blockage, 0.5 indicates that half a lane is blocked, 1 indicates that a full travel lane is blocked, and 1.5 indicates that 1.5 lanes are blocked.” Here Ravichandran teaches that the degree of blockage (used to compute quality as part of determining/selecting a pull over location) is based on determining if/how much other vehicles would need to deviate from the current lane to get around the vehicle)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle includes determining, by the one or more processors, the available road width based on map information identifying a road on which the autonomous vehicle and the emergency vehicle are currently traveling.”(Ravichandran “[0084] 6. One or more data sources 36 for providing digital road map data drawn from GIS databases, potentially including one or more of the following: high-precision maps of the roadway geometric properties; maps describing road network connectivity properties; maps describing roadway physical properties (such as the number of vehicular and cyclist traffic lanes, lane width, lane traffic direction, lane marker type and location); and maps describing the spatial locations of road features such as crosswalks, traffic signs of various types (e.g., stop, yield) and traffic signals of various types (e.g., red-yellow-green indicators, flashing yellow or red indicators, right or left turn arrows). Such data may be stored on a memory storage unit 32 on the AV, or transmitted to the AV by wireless communication from a remotely located database, or a combination of the two.” Here Ravichandri teaches that the road width comes from a map)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by a perception system of the autonomous vehicle, whether the emergency vehicle is approaching the autonomous vehicle.”(Mizuno [0039] The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. Specifically, the target zone Pe is set based on: a condition of the road R; positions of the vehicle Vm, the emergency vehicle Ve, and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2; a travelling direction of the emergency vehicle Ve, and so on. Basically, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder (or a side strip) of the road R, but various sites available to stop the vehicle Ve may be set as the target zone Pe.” Here mizuno teaches (from info from first information collector (i.e. a perception system)) is used based in part on travel direction of emergency vehicle + positions of the vehicle itself and the emergency vehicle thus teaching a relative layout of determining if the emergency vehicle is approaching the autonomous vehicle or not)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 7, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is based on whether the emergency vehicle is approaching the autonomous vehicle from in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle.”( [0039] The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. Specifically, the target zone Pe is set based on: a condition of the road R; positions of the vehicle Vm, the emergency vehicle Ve, and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2; a travelling direction of the emergency vehicle Ve, and so on.” Here mizuno teaches the pull over location (target zone) is determined in part on the various collected parameters, including the positions of the vehicles (autonomous vehicle and ambulance) and “so on” which read in light of [0037] which teaches all the collected parameters includes direction of travel/destination + planned route; thus teaching are recognition of where/if the emergency vehicle is approaching (front/rear + left/right if at an intersection) e.g. [0054] teaches determining of route overlap/how the emergency vehicle is approaching (not approaching) the autonomous vehicle))
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by a perception system of the autonomous vehicle, whether the autonomous vehicle is approaching the emergency vehicle.”( (Mizuno [0039] The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. Specifically, the target zone Pe is set based on: a condition of the road R; positions of the vehicle Vm, the emergency vehicle Ve, and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2; a travelling direction of the emergency vehicle Ve, and so on. Basically, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder (or a side strip) of the road R, but various sites available to stop the vehicle Ve may be set as the target zone Pe.” Here mizuno teaches (from info from first information collector (i.e. a perception system)) is used based in part on travel direction of emergency vehicle + positions of the vehicle itself and the emergency vehicle thus teaching a relative layout of determining if the emergency vehicle is approaching the autonomous vehicle or not))
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is based on a number of lanes of traffic of a road on which the autonomous vehicle and the emergency vehicle are currently traveling.”([0037] “…. More specifically, the information about the road R includes a straightness, a curvature, an existence of an intersection, a number of lanes, a width of the road R, a width of the shoulder, a color of the traffic light, an existence of a center divider etc., within a range in which the emergency vehicle Ve overtakes the vehicle Vm or within a range slightly larger than such range. “ the third information collector is used/determines the number of lanes of traffic that the vehicle/emergency vehicle are currently travelling on + [0039]” The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2.” Here teaches that the target zone (pull over location) is based in part on road information (which from [0037] includes the number of lanes))
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 10, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is further based on whether the road has only one lane of traffic going in a direction of the autonomous vehicle.”( [0059] “Then, it is determined at step S12 whether the driver 4 is required to stop the vehicle Vm at the target zone Pe. As described, if the road R is a single-lane road, the vehicle Vm is required to pull over to the target zone Pe thereby clearing the way for the emergency vehicle Ve. In this case, the answer of step S12 will be YES. By contrast, the road R is a multi-lane road, it may be possible to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve by pulling into another lane while running slowly. In this case, the answer of step S12 will be NO.” Here teaches determining what constitutes (first factors) a proper pull over location includes if the vehicle is on a single lane (i.e. only one lane in direction of travel) or multiple lanes.)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 10, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is further based on whether the road has an opposing lane of traffic.”(Mizuno [0037] “More specifically, the information about the road R includes a straightness, a curvature, an existence of an intersection, a number of lanes, a width of the road R, a width of the shoulder, a color of the traffic light, an existence of a center divider etc., within a range in which the emergency vehicle Ve overtakes the vehicle Vm or within a range slightly larger than such range” + [0039] “The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. Specifically, the target zone Pe is set based on: a condition of the road R; positions of the vehicle Vm, the emergency vehicle Ve, and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2; a travelling direction of the emergency vehicle Ve, and so on. Basically, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder (or a side strip) of the road R, but various sites available to stop the vehicle Ve may be set as the target zone Pe. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder of the road R at a site possible to create a space for the emergency vehicle Ve to pass in the travel lane, outside of an intersection Is. The road R shown in FIG. 1 is a single-lane road including a first lane L1 and a second lane L2 opposed to each other without a center divider. In the road R, the target zone Pe is set to a site at which an available width for the emergency vehicle Ve to overtake can be maintained wider than a width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve.” From [0037] + [0039] the target zones of the road are determined in part (determine first or second factors) based on the number of lanes and if there is a road divider (between the lane directions) thus the target location is selected based on in part if there is an oncoming lane or not (presence of a divider or not))
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is based on a behavior of a road user detected by the autonomous vehicle.”(Mizuno [0037] “The second information collector 2b collects information about a speed, a direction, a current position, a destination, a width, a length, a position of an accelerator pedal (not shown), a position of a brake pedal (not shown) or a pedal force applied to the brake pedal, a steering angle, a driving preference of a driver etc., of the other vehicle Vo.” + [0039] “The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. “ Mizuno teaches identifies pull over locations based in part on the detected behaviors of other vehicles (a road user))
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 13, wherein determining the one or more first factors or determining the one or more second factors is further based on a direction of travel of the road user.”([0037] “The second information collector 2b collects information about a speed, a direction, a current position, a destination, a width, a length, a position of an accelerator pedal (not shown), a position of a brake pedal (not shown) or a pedal force applied to the brake pedal, a steering angle, a driving preference of a driver etc., of the other vehicle Vo” Here mizuno teaches (from [0039] selecting a pull over location based on this info from [0038]) the direction (direction of travel) of other vehicles (the road user) is a factor based on the direction of travel)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Mizuno teaches “The method of claim 14, wherein controlling the autonomous vehicle includes controlling the autonomous vehicle to follow the direction of travel of the road user.”(Mizuno [0044] In the situation illustrated in FIG. 1, the other vehicle Vo1 running on the first lane L1 has already entered into the intersection Is earlier than the vehicle Ve. In this situation, it is expected that the other vehicle Vo1 passes through the intersection Is while increasing or maintaining a speed, and then pulls to a stopping pint Po1 in the shoulder of the first lane L1 to stop or to run slowly. Such movement of the other vehicle Vo1 and the stopping point Po1 are presumed or predicted based on the information collected by the second information collector 2b. On the other hand, the other vehicle Vo2 running on the oncoming second lane L2 is expected to pass through the intersection Is, and then pulls to the stopping point Po2 in the shoulder of the second lane L2 to stop or to run slowly. Such movement of the other vehicle Vo2 and the stopping point Po2 are also presumed or predicted based on the information collected by the second information collector 2b.” Here (in fig. 1) Mizuno teaches recognizing if another road user pulls over into a location which would cause the autonomous vehicle to follow the direction of travel and subsequently pull over past the road users pull over spot.)
Claims 16-19 are non-transitory computer readable medium equivalent to the method claims 1, 4, 7 and 10; they have the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination as their respective equivalents.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 20200208998 A1; Xiang et al
Regarding Claim 2, Mizuno et al does not teach determining a first pullover location prior to determining whether the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle.
Xiang et al teaches a vehicle routing system which includes determining alternative routing solutions in advanced (before detecting) an incident occurrence ([0070]-[0071]), these alternative routing solutions include identifying pullover locations and incidents include detecting an emergency vehicle approaching the vehicle. ([0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Mizuno et al to substitute determining of a first pull over location responsive to detecting an emergency vehicle to instead utilize predetermined pull over solution/locations as taught by Xiang. One would be motivated to implement this pre-calculation to allow for the vehicle to more quickly respond to detecting an emergency vehicle by allowing for it to immeditately implement a routing to a known pullover location as opposed to having to delay and search for a pullover location. Xiang teaches this immediacy benefit in ([0063])
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210201676 A1, Tariq et al and further in view of Mizuno, US-20180334161-A1 .
Regarding Claim 20, Taris et al teaches “) A method comprising: determining, by one or more processors of an autonomous vehicle, whether the autonomous vehicle will impede an emergency vehicle approaching the autonomous vehicle ( [0020] In various examples, the determination to yield may be based on a determination that the emergency vehicle and the vehicle share (or will share at a future time based on the predicted trajectory) at least one of a driving lane, a direction of travel on a road, an intersection, a section of road, or the like. In various examples, the determination to yield may be based on one or more rules of the road (e.g., laws, regulations, etc. associated with operating in the environment). For example, the rule(s) of the road may require vehicles to slow or stop forward movement and yield to an emergency vehicle operating in an emergency state on the road within a threshold distance of a vehicle, such as regardless of a direction of travel of the emergency vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle computing system may determine to yield to a detected emergency vehicle located on the road within the threshold distance.);” and responsive to determining that the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle, controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle in an autonomous driving mode to follow a behavior of a road user detected by the autonomous vehicle.”( [0028] The techniques discussed herein can improve a functioning of a computing device of a vehicle in a number of ways. The computing system may be configured to assess a scene proximate a vehicle and determine actions associated with other vehicles. The computing system may utilize the actions of other vehicles in determining an action for the vehicle to take. For example, other vehicles are pulling over to the right, so the vehicle computing system may determine to cause the vehicle to pull over to the right. By determining an action based on observed actions of other vehicles, the vehicle computing system may reduce an amount of processing power needed to determine the action for the vehicle to take.” Here teaches the vehicle recognizing the yielding behaviors of other road users and following those behaviors for yielding (moving out of the way) to the emergency vehicle)
Tariq et al however does not specifically teach recognizing that the autonomous vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle based on the width of the emergency vehicle and the available road width.
Mizuno et al teaches a similar vehicle control system which includes determining if the vehicle will impede an approaching emergency vehicle based on the emergency vehicle’s width and the available road width. ([0039] The controller 1 further comprises a target zone determiner 3 configured to determine the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to yield to the emergency vehicle Ve, based at least on the information about the road R and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2 collected by the information collector 2. Specifically, the target zone Pe is set based on: a condition of the road R; positions of the vehicle Vm, the emergency vehicle Ve, and the other vehicles Vo1 and Vo2; a travelling direction of the emergency vehicle Ve, and so on. Basically, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder (or a side strip) of the road R, but various sites available to stop the vehicle Ve may be set as the target zone Pe. In the example shown in FIG. 1, the target zone Pe is set within the shoulder of the road R at a site possible to create a space for the emergency vehicle Ve to pass in the travel lane, outside of an intersection Is. The road R shown in FIG. 1 is a single-lane road including a first lane L1 and a second lane L2 opposed to each other without a center divider. In the road R, the target zone Pe is set to a site at which an available width for the emergency vehicle Ve to overtake can be maintained wider than a width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve. Specifically, such available width can be calculated by subtracting a total width of a width (Wm) of the vehicle Vm and a width (Wo2) of the other vehicle Vo2 running on the oncoming second lane L2 from a total width (Wr) of the road R, as expressed by the following expression:
Available width=(Wr−(Wm+Wo2)); and
the available width (Wr−(Wm+Wo2)) is wider than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve, as expressed by the following inequality expression:
(Wr−(Wm+Wo2))>We.
[0040] In a case that the road R is divided by the center divider, the available width is calculated by subtracting the width (Wm) of the vehicle Vm from a width (Wr/2) of the first lane L1, as expressed by the following expression:
Available width=(Wr/2−Wm).
[0041] In this case, the target zone Pe is also set to a site at which the available width can be maintained wider than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve to satisfy the following inequality expression:
(Wr/2−Wm)>We.
[0042] However, if the available width (Wr−(Wm+Wo2)) is narrower than the width (We) of the emergency vehicle Ve, and a distance between the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm and a stopping point Po2 of the other vehicle Vo2 in the oncoming second lane L2 in the direction of the road R is shorter than a length Le of the emergency vehicle Ve as illustrated in FIG. 3, it is difficult for the emergency vehicle Ve to pass between the vehicle Vm and the other vehicle Vo2. In order to avoid such disadvantage, the target zone determiner 3 is further configured to set the target zone Pe for the vehicle Vm to a site in the first lane L1 away from the stopping point Po2 in the oncoming second lane L2 more than the length Le of the emergency vehicle Ve.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Tariq to include the determining if the emergency vehicle will be impeded by the autonomous vehicle based on the available road width and the emergency vehicle’s width as taught by Mizuno. Such a modification would be obvious under the KSR rational of “Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results”. (I) Tariq teaches the base device which includes an autonomous vehicle following the behavior of other road users in response to determining it will impede an emergency vehicle, and in a separate reference Mizuno teaches recognizing that a vehicle will impede an emergency vehicle based on the width of the emergency vehicle and the available roadwidth. (2) modification to include determining if a vehicle will impede the emergency vehicle based on the emergency vehicle’s width and the available road width could be achieved through simple programming into the control logic of the system of Tariq. In the combination the underlying pinriplces of operation are not being changed. Tariq is still being used for the same purposes/function as it is in the original teachings and the use of Mizuno’s teachings in the combination are performing the same function (determining if a vehicle will impede an emergency vehicle) is the same in the combination as it is in the original teachings. (3) The results of the combination would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, the underlying purpose and function of the inventions are unchanged in the combination, it is merely implementing an additional check/way of determining if/when an autonomous vehicle would yield (pull over) for an approaching emergency vehicle. (4) [0019]-[0020] makes clear that the determination if the autonomous vehicle should yield can function in many different ways/has different implementations based on general rules/law/regulations, as such the implementation of determining the need to yield based on road width and emergency vehicle width fits within the general spirit of Tariq and from these general teachings would have a reasonable expectation of success to one of ordinary skill in the field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights