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 .
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to the application submitted on 02/03/2025. A preliminary amendment was submitted and accepted on 02/03/2025. Claims 1-10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-20 have been added. Claims 11-20 are pending and rejected as detailed below. This action is non-final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant has claimed priority to foreign patent DE10 2022 128 153.1 filed on 10/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0040] “the lines 6” is missing from Fig. 1
[0040] describes the use of letters “A to H” but “D” is missing from Fig. 1
[0058] “box B7” is missing from Fig. 7
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 1 has letter “O” but it is not explained
Fig. 7 box B6 not explained
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claim(s) 11-20 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. Claim 11 and its dependents are directed towards a method which is the statutory category of a process.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
- Claim 11, recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 11 recites, “receiving a first trajectory planned by a first of the autonomous vehicles by means of a central electronic computing device; receiving a second trajectory planned by a second of the autonomous vehicles by means of the central electronic computing device;” This would be mere data gathering and signal transmission recited at a high level of generality. The claim further states, “determining a first area requirement of the first autonomous vehicle along its first planned trajectory and determining a second area requirement of the second autonomous vehicle along its second planned trajectory; when it is ascertained by means of the central computing device that the two surface requirements at least partially overlap with the planned trajectories in the at least one traffic region: prioritizing the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle by way of the central electronic computing device;” This would construe a mental process. The system is determining a space requirement for a vehicle as it travels as well as a second vehicle. Every human driving a vehicle would mentally determine how much space their vehicle requires. This mental process would continue to determine whether or not the vehicles would collide. The human driver could then determine whether or not to avoid the other vehicle or not on the basis of waiting or going based on some form of priority, this could be based on traffic signals, road signs, indicating lights, etc. The claim ends with “granting approval to travel the traffic region for the prioritized autonomous vehicle,” this is again merely a form of signal transmission recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 12 recites, insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites, “wherein: the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle is prioritized on the basis of a specified set of rules stored in the central electronic computing device.” The use of an internal ruleset is merely equivalent to traffic laws and signals. Nothing is added by this.
- Claim 13 recites, insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites, “the approval for the travel is carried out by a signal, which is transmitted to at least one of the prioritized vehicle or by a traffic element of the traffic region.” This is merely signal transmission recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 14, recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. The claim recites, “when it is ascertained by means of the central electronic computing device that the prioritized autonomous vehicle is driven along its planned trajectory such that an overlap of the area requirements does not take place, the central electronic computing device grants an approval to travel the traffic region to the further autonomous vehicle.” This is merely a mental step of determining that an intersection is clear to proceed through and then determining that the vehicle can drive through it.
- Claim 15 recites, insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites, “wherein: at least one surrounding region, which is adjacent to the traffic region, is taken into consideration in the approval.” This is merely more data gathering recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 16 recites, insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites, “wherein: a status of a traffic element of the traffic region is ascertained and the approval further takes place as a function of this ascertained status.” This is merely more data gathering recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 17, recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. The claim recites, “when a further trajectory planned by a further one of the autonomous vehicles is received by means of the central electronic computing device, in the prioritization, one of the previously non-prioritized autonomous vehicles is prioritized on the basis of a time interval.” This is a mental step of determining that a given time has passed based on a priority. The driver can determine after a certain time has passed, that a different driver is not moving and proceed around them.
- Claim 18, recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. The claim recites, “when it is ascertained by means of the central electronic computing device that the first trajectory and the second trajectory at least partially coincide in the traffic region, but without an overlap of the surface requirements, an approval is granted to the first autonomous vehicle and to the second autonomous vehicle.” This is a mental process of determining that two vehicles will not collide, therefore they can both proceed at the same time. This is merely turning left at the same time as traffic across an intersection or two neighboring lanes proceeding past each other. A person could reasonably make this determination in their mind.
- Claim 19, recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. The claim recites, “when a nonautonomous road user is detected by a sensor device of at least one of the autonomous vehicles” This is mere data gathering. “a correction of the associated trajectory of the autonomous vehicle which has detected the road user thus takes place, an update of the prioritization or the approval takes place.” This is a simple step of determining that a first vehicle cannot proceed for some reason, a pedestrian is in front of them. The driver of a second vehicle can then determine it would be safe to proceed and determine that they can do it before the first vehicle.
- Claim 20 recites, insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim recites, “system comprising a central electronic computing device, which is designed to carry out a method according to claim 11.” This is merely applying the method to a generic computing device.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are generic computing elements and data gathering steps. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The computer elements are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and the use of the judicial exception is generally linked to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle driving without using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of a “memory” and a “processor” recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP2106.05 (d)).
Based on the above analysis, claim(S) 11-20 is/are not eligible subject matter and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,451,009. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the patent. See table below.
Instant Application - 19/100,615
Published Patent - 12,451,009
Explanation
Claim 11. A method for coordinating autonomous vehicles in at least one traffic region, the method comprising:
Claim 1. A method for coordinating driverless transport vehicles, the method comprising:
Anticipated
receiving a first trajectory planned by a first of the autonomous vehicles by means of a central electronic computing device;
receiving, by a central electronic computing installation, a first trajectory of a first driverless transport vehicle of the driverless transport vehicles, which is computed by the first driverless transport vehicle;
Anticipated
receiving a second trajectory planned by a second of the autonomous vehicles by means of the central electronic computing device;
receiving, by the central electronic computing installation, a second trajectory of a second driverless transport vehicle of the driverless transport vehicles, which is computed by the second driverless transport vehicle;
Anticipated
determining a first area requirement of the first autonomous vehicle along its first planned trajectory and determining a second area requirement of the second autonomous vehicle along its second planned trajectory;
ascertaining, by the central electronic computing installation, a first space requirement of the first driverless transport vehicle along the first trajectory, and a second space requirement of the second driverless transport vehicle along the second trajectory;
Anticipated
when it is ascertained by means of the central computing device that the two surface requirements at least partially overlap with the planned trajectories in the at least one traffic region:
and in a case in which it is ascertained by the central electronic computing installation that the first and second space requirements at least partially overlap one another:
Anticipated
prioritizing the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle by way of the central electronic computing device; and
selecting, by the central electronic computing installation, the first driverless transport vehicle or the second driverless transport vehicle, based on a criterion; and
The patented claim limitation selects a vehicle based on a ruleset, which anticipates the idea of prioritizing a vehicle based on a ruleset.
granting approval to travel the traffic region for the prioritized autonomous vehicle.
transmitting, by the central electronic computing installation, a signal to a selected driverless transport vehicle, wherein, based on the signal, the selected driverless transport vehicle is controlled to change its movement along its trajectory and/or to change its trajectory; wherein the signal controls the selected driverless transport vehicle to change its movement along its trajectory in such a manner that the selected driverless transport vehicle, initially traveling along the trajectory, stops; wherein, once the selected driverless transport vehicle has stopped and while the selected driverless transport vehicle is stopped, the other driverless transport vehicle travels along its trajectory; and wherein the selected driverless transport vehicle is instructed to end its stoppage and to travel onward based on a determination that the other driverless transport vehicle is negotiating a curve or is in a convoy with one or more other vehicles.
The patented claim limitation is merely a more specific limitation of the instant application; and provides for a more detailed explanation of how one vehicle is approved to travel over the other, but the idea of telling one vehicle to move before the other can is anticipated by the patented claim.
Claim 12. The method according to claim 11, wherein: the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle is prioritized on the basis of a specified set of rules stored in the central electronic computing device.
Claim 1. Limitation “selecting, by the central electronic computing installation, the first driverless transport vehicle or the second driverless transport vehicle, based on a criterion;”
Claim 12 of the instant application is anticipated by the patented claim as the claims both require a criterion, akin to a ruleset, for prioritization.
Claim 13. The method according to claim 11, wherein: the approval for the travel is carried out by a signal, which is transmitted to at least one of the prioritized vehicle or by a traffic element of the traffic region.
Claim 1. Limitations. “transmitting, by the central electronic computing installation, a signal to a selected driverless transport vehicle,”
Claim 13 of the instant application is anticipated by the patented claim as the claims both the transmission of a signal from the central computer to the prioritized vehicle.
Claim 14. The method according to claim 11, further comprising: when it is ascertained by means of the central electronic computing device that the prioritized autonomous vehicle is driven along its planned trajectory such that an overlap of the area requirements does not take place, the central electronic computing device grants an approval to travel the traffic region to the further autonomous vehicle.
Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein, when it is ascertained by the central electronic computing installation that the other driverless transport vehicle has travelled so far that any overlap of the first and second space requirements is precluded, the central electronic computing installation transmits to the selected driverless transport vehicle a further signal which controls the selected driverless transport vehicle to end its stoppage and to travel onward.
Claim 14 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 of the patented application as they both monitor and area and once the area is clear, the non-selected vehicle can travel through it.
Claim 20. A system comprising a central electronic computing device, which is designed to carry out a method according to claim 11.
Claim 8. A system for carrying out a method according to claim 1.
Claim 20 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 8 of the patented application.
Claims 15-19 of the instant application are rejected due to their dependence on the rejected independent claim 11.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US PG Pub 2022/0041181) in view of Nister (US PG Pub 2019/023371).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches a method for coordinating autonomous vehicles in at least one traffic region, the method comprising: receiving a first trajectory planned by a first of the autonomous vehicles by means of a central electronic computing device; (Fig. 1, S101 and [0042]-[0043] teaches a first step of a server receiving planned trajectories for a number of vehicles)
receiving a second trajectory planned by a second of the autonomous vehicles by means of the central electronic computing device; (Fig. 1, S101 and [0042]-[0043] teaches a first step of a server receiving planned trajectories for a number of vehicles)
when it is ascertained by means of the central computing device that the two surface requirements at least partially overlap with the planned trajectories in the at least one traffic region: ([0045] and [0048] teaches that the system can determine that there is an overlap, i.e. collision, based on the two planned trajectories)
prioritizing the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle by way of the central electronic computing device; (Fig. 1, S102 and [0048], [0053]-[0054], [0059], and [0062]-[0065] teach the system determining a right of way, i.e. prioritization for the vehicle trajectories) and
granting approval to travel the traffic region for the prioritized autonomous vehicle. (Fig. 1, S102 and [0048], [0053]-[0054], [0059], and [0062]-[ 0065] further teach that after determining the right of way, the system sends a modified trajectory to the vehicles affected by the right of way scenario. This modified trajectory is an “approval” to move in the way that the vehicle wanted to.)
Liu does not teach determining a first area requirement of the first autonomous vehicle along its first planned trajectory and determining a second area requirement of the second autonomous vehicle along its second planned trajectory.
However, Nister teaches “determining a first area requirement of the first autonomous vehicle along its first planned trajectory and determining a second area requirement of the second autonomous vehicle along its second planned trajectory” ([0008], [0055], and [0098] teaches a system that determines an area and/or volume required by a given vehicle and/or object on a given trajectory at a future point in time)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Liu with Nister; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to systems of vehicle control to avoid collision. As Nister teaches in [0008] the use of an area overlap is a basis to determine that a collision will occur. Therefore determining the area as a representation of a vehicle allows the system to determine a fully 3D determination of a collision. Vehicles have a full shape and volume so the use of this area ensures that a determination of a collision occurs.
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein: the first autonomous vehicle or the second autonomous vehicle is prioritized on the basis of a specified set of rules stored in the central electronic computing device. ([0048], [0059], and [0062] teaches that the central system can prioritize the vehicle trajectory according to an internal set of rules)
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein: the approval for the travel is carried out by a signal, which is transmitted to at least one of the prioritized vehicle or by a traffic element of the traffic region. ([0048], [0053]-[0054], [0059], and [0062] teach the system sending a signal indicating a priority to the vehicle)
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising: when it is ascertained by means of the central electronic computing device that the prioritized autonomous vehicle is driven along its planned trajectory such that an overlap of the area requirements does not take place, the central electronic computing device grants an approval to travel the traffic region to the further autonomous vehicle. ([0048] and [0059] teach that the system determines that the first vehicle has cleared an area and/or the system determines that there is no collision that is going to occur, this then allows the second vehicle to move along the route)
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein: at least one surrounding region, which is adjacent to the traffic region, is taken into consideration in the approval. ([0059] teaches the system using a high definition map to determine the full extent of a road network including lane lines and road closures in an area, this would be taking into account adjacent regions to the current region as the system is aware of all possible routes)
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein: when a further trajectory planned by a further one of the autonomous vehicles is received by means of the central electronic computing device, in the prioritization, one of the previously non-prioritized autonomous vehicles is prioritized on the basis of a time interval. ([0046] teaches that the system has a preset time period during which the system prevents a collision on the basis of a preset time period. After expiration of the time period it allows the vehicle to move forward, as in [0048])
Regarding claim 18, Liu teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein: when it is ascertained by means of the central electronic computing device that the first trajectory and the second trajectory at least partially coincide in the traffic region, but without an overlap of the surface requirements, an approval is granted to the first autonomous vehicle and to the second autonomous vehicle. ([0048], [0059], and [0069] teach the system determining that there is no collision between the two planned trajectories, as such both vehicles are allowed to continue on their predetermined trajectory)
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches a system comprising a central electronic computing device, which is designed to carry out a method according to claim 11. ([0042], [0048], [0055], and [0067]-[0069] teaches a server system that is designed to carry out method of the invention)
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Nister in view of Higuchi (US PG Pub 2022/0058945).
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Liu and Nister teaches the method according to claim 11.
The combination of Liu and Nister does not teach a status of a traffic element of the traffic region is ascertained and the approval further takes place as a function of this ascertained status.
However, Higuchi teaches “a status of a traffic element of the traffic region is ascertained and the approval further takes place as a function of this ascertained status.” ([0088] teaches the vehicle’s observing the current operation of a traffic element as part of environmental data that is used to determine a priority)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Liu and Nister with Higuchi; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle control methods and traffic control systems for given areas. As Higuchi teaches in [0003]-[0004] the system can determine a series of rights-of-way for multiple vehicles. The monitoring of the driving environment before determining a right-of-way allows for a complete picture to be known by the system. The use of a traffic element ensures that the right-of-way is not given to a vehicle that doesn’t actually have it based on the traffic signals.
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Liu and Nister teaches the method according to claim 11.
The combination of Liu and Nister does not teach when a nonautonomous road user is detected by a sensor device of at least one of the autonomous vehicles and a correction of the associated trajectory of the autonomous vehicle which has detected the road user thus takes place, an update of the prioritization or the approval takes place.
However, Higuchi teaches “when a nonautonomous road user is detected by a sensor device of at least one of the autonomous vehicles and a correction of the associated trajectory of the autonomous vehicle which has detected the road user thus takes place, an update of the prioritization or the approval takes place.” ([0063]-[0064] teaches a vehicle priority system that can determine “mitigating factors” including a non-autonomous road user that causes the vehicle to have to alter its planned route, the system can then reassign a priority value)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Liu and Nister with Higuchi; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle control methods and traffic control systems for given areas. As Higuchi teaches in [0003]-[0004] the system can determine a series of rights-of-way for multiple vehicles. The monitoring of the driving environment before determining a right-of-way allows for a complete picture to be known by the system. The determination of pedestrians or other obstacles may cause a vehicle to alter its planned trajectory. The vehicle altering its trajectory can cause priorities to shift. As taught in [0063] the non-autonomous vehicle is a block. By determining these blocks the system can mitigate this block by giving other vehicles a right-of-way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tonguz (US PG Pub 2014/0278029) teaches methods and software for managing vehicle priority proximate to a potential travel-priority conflict zone, such as a roadway intersection, where travel conflicts, such as crossing traffic, can arise. Coordination involves forming an ad-hoc network in a region containing the conflict zone using, for example, vehicle-to-vehicle communications and developing a dynamic traffic control plan based on information about vehicles approaching the conflict zone. Instructions based on the dynamic traffic control plan are communicated to devices aboard vehicles in the ad-hoc network, which display one or more virtual traffic signals to the operators of the vehicles and/or control the vehicles (for example, in autonomous vehicles) in accordance with the dynamic traffic control plan, which may account for a priority level associated with one or more of the vehicles.
Malkes (US PG Pub 2019/0051162) teaches a traffic control system and a method are provided for detecting changes in traffic patterns at an intersection, establishing traffic rules therefore, and communicating the same to objects at the intersection. The method comprises receiving, by a processor, traffic data at an intersection; determining, by the processor, an average path taken by one or more objects at the intersection; determining, by the processor, a deviation of the average path from a historical average path; based on the deviation, determining by the processor, a traffic rule is to be implemented for incoming objects detected; and communicating, by the processor, the traffic rule to the incoming objects.
Song (US PG Pub 2017/0017236) teaches an autonomous mobile-based automated guided vehicle system comprising a system input unit configured to set and input a mobile path between a departure point and an end point of the autonomous mobile-based automated guided vehicle as one or more mobile path blocks in the unit of a block, a system control unit configured to apply a control signal to a corresponding autonomous mobile-based automated guided vehicle based on one or more mobile paths in the unit of a block and a system storage unit configured to store the mobile paths in the unit of a block, which are inputted by a user through the system input unit, and a method for controlling the autonomous mobile-based automated guided vehicle system.
Morris (US PG Pub 2020/0193812) teaches technologies described herein pertain to generating a bid for turn priority at an intersection. An autonomous vehicle determines that the autonomous vehicle and a second autonomous vehicle are proximate to an intersection. The autonomous vehicle generates a first bid that is indicative of a first importance that the autonomous vehicle traverses the intersection. The first bid is based upon characteristics of a trip of a passenger riding in the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle transmits the first bid to a networked computing system, wherein the networked computing system determines a turn order based upon the first bid and a second bid generated by the second autonomous vehicle. The networked computing system transmits the turn order to the autonomous vehicle, wherein the autonomous vehicle operates based upon the turn order.
Hansen (US Pat 11,922,805) teaches an intelligent traffic control system may be configured to manage autonomous vehicle traffic, such as by communicating with autonomous vehicles. The intelligent traffic control system may be configured to output an indication of a traffic control command to autonomous vehicles and non-autonomous vehicles. The intelligent traffic control system may be configured to determine traffic control commands for autonomous vehicles and non-autonomous vehicles.
Okumura (US Pat 9,528,838) teaches an automated driving system and methods are disclosed. The automated driving system includes a perception system disposed on an autonomous vehicle. The automated driving system can detect, using the perception system, a neighboring vehicle proximate to an intersection, identify two or more potential paths through the intersection for the neighboring vehicle, determine a path priority for each of the two or more potential paths, and determine a path priority for a planned path through the intersection for the autonomous vehicle. If the path priority of at least one of the potential paths is higher than the path priority of the planned path, the automated driving system can send a command to one or more vehicle systems configured to allow the neighboring vehicle to proceed through the intersection before the autonomous vehicle.
Klopfenstein (US Pat 10,755,579) teaches receiving, from at least one first autonomous vehicle entering an interface region of a multilane road in a first direction, a current first autonomous vehicle destination. Receiving, from at least one second autonomous vehicle exiting the interface region from the first direction, a current second autonomous vehicle status as exiting the road. Receiving, from at least one traffic system covering the interface region, traffic data applicable to the interface region. Determining, based at least in part on each received destination, each received exiting status, and the received traffic data, an operating parameters envelope for each autonomous vehicle entering the interface region in the first direction. Transmitting, to each corresponding autonomous vehicle entering the interface region in the first direction, instructions to apply the corresponding determined operating parameters envelope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights