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 .
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, 4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorokin (US 2019/0389366 A1) in view of Iagnemma (US 2018/0113456 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sorokin discloses a control system for a vehicle capable of autonomous driving (Sorokin teaches an autonomously driving motor vehicle 1 ([0009], [0031]) having a controller 3, a lighting module 2, and an environment sensor system 4 ([0032]) — the controller controlling lighting module operation constitutes the control system.), the control system comprising:
a stop position setting unit that sets a stop position ahead of the vehicle in a traveling direction (Sorokin teaches the controller determines a "stopping location, at which the motor vehicle will come to a stop" ([0020]), deducing that the vehicle "must stop at the stopping location PO" ([0033]); the location is fixed on the ground in front of the vehicle in the direction of travel ([0010]) and is determined automatically from environment/navigation information ([0016], claims 3–4).);
a travel controlling unit that causes the vehicle to autonomously drive to the stop position set by the stop position setting unit (Sorokin teaches the autonomous vehicle 1 travels along roadway FB toward stopping location PO and comes to a stop there ([0031], [0035]–[0037]).);
a projecting unit that projects a projection element indicating the stop position by a light beam emitted from the vehicle onto a road surface while the travel controlling unit causes the vehicle to autonomously drive to the stop position (Sorokin teaches the lighting module 2 projects a set of symbols SY including a stop bar HB that indicates stopping location PO onto the ground ([0021], [0034]); the symbols are advanced ahead of the vehicle as it travels toward PO ([0036]); a laser light source is used ([0026], claim 15).); and
the projecting unit projects the projection element when the vehicle reaches the front position of the halt place (Sorokin teaches that the projection element is generated and projected during the approach, before the vehicle is under the predetermined distance to the stopping location, "already at this time point" though the projection range is still less than the braking distance to PO, giving "an early indication of the vehicle intention" ([0011], [0034]–[0035]); as set forth below, Iagnemma teaches that the position the vehicle reaches when it begins this on-approach projection is the front position of the previously set halt place.).
However, Sorokin does not expressly disclose a travel route setting unit that sets a normal route serving as a traveling path through which the vehicle is caused to autonomously drive and on which a halt place is previously set, and a stop route through which the vehicle is caused to autonomously drive from a front position of the halt place to the stop position, wherein the travel controlling unit causes the vehicle to autonomously drive along the normal route and along the stop route from the front position of the halt place to the stop position, and the projecting unit projects the projection element when the vehicle reaches the front position of the halt place.
Iagnemma discloses an autonomous vehicle whose devices respond to control signals to "drive the vehicle autonomously on a specified route through a road network defined by map data and toward a specified goal position" ([0017]) — the specified route corresponding to the claimed normal route, and the specified goal position corresponding to the previously-set halt place, because the goal position is the intended destination established before autonomous driving toward it begins ([0052], [0075]–[0077]) and is the location at which a stopped activity (e.g., pickup or drop-off) is to occur ([0025], [0042], [0056]). Iagnemma further teaches the claimed stop route: as the vehicle is "approaching its goal position" ([0122]), the system selects a precise stopping place in the vicinity of the goal position ([0079]) and the trajectory-planning process generates and executes "a trajectory to be executed through a road network to reach the currently selected stopping place" ([0019], [0129]) — that is, a stop route extending from a front position (the vicinity/approach of the goal position, i.e., the front position of the halt place) to the stop position (the selected stopping place). Iagnemma further teaches that the vehicle "is caused to drive autonomously toward the currently selected stopping place" until it stops there ([0015]), corresponding to the recited control of driving along the normal route and along the stop route from the front position of the halt place to the stop position. Read in combination with Iagnemma, the front position at which Sorokin begins its early, on-approach projection is the front position of the previously-set halt place, thereby teaching the recited projection of the projection element when the vehicle reaches the front position of the halt place.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sorokin's autonomously driving vehicle to follow Iagnemma's specified route to a previously-set goal position and to execute a stop route to a selected stopping place in the vicinity of that goal position, because doing so merely applies Iagnemma's known route-planning and stopping-place-selection technique to Sorokin's known on-approach stop-projection vehicle to achieve the predictable result of an autonomous vehicle that announces, in advance and on the road surface, the precise place at which it will stop at a planned destination; Sorokin expressly seeks to alert other road users "at an early stage" to where the vehicle will stop ([0007], [0014], [0035]), and Iagnemma's preset-destination context — where a person is waiting at the goal position for a pickup or drop-off ([0025], [0056]) — is precisely the situation in which advance notice of the exact stopping place is beneficial, supplying a clear reason to combine; and because both references operate on the same conventional autonomous-vehicle sensing, navigation, and motion-control hardware (Sorokin [0016]; Iagnemma [0004]–[0013]), the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success, the combination being nothing more than the arrangement of known elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the projecting unit projects the projection element on an area of a substantially same size as the vehicle when viewed from above (Iagnemma teaches that the stop position is defined as an area the vehicle occupies, "identified by a defined shape, typically a rectangle" ([0045]), constructed as the "AV footprint area (normally a rectangle)…corresponding to the footprint of the AV with a margin added in each dimension" ([0093], [0097]) — i.e., an area of substantially the same size as the vehicle viewed from above. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to project Sorokin's stop indicating projection element on the vehicle footprint sized stopping place area of Iagnemma, thereby marking the area the vehicle will occupy when stopped and predictably enabling a nearby person to grasp where the vehicle will stop, consistent with Sorokin's purpose of giving an early, intuitive indication of the vehicle's stopping intention (Sorokin [0007], [0013]–[0014]); this is merely the use of Iagnemma's known footprint rectangle representation to improve Sorokin's stop projection in the same way, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Regarding claim 9, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma discloses the control system according to claim 1, further comprising a camera that takes an image around the vehicle, wherein the stop position setting unit sets the stop position with reference to information of the image taken by the camera (Iagnemma further teaches a camera that takes an image around the vehicle and setting the stop position with reference to the image — the surroundings sensors include "monocular or stereo video cameras," and the availability layer of feasible stopping places is "continually updated in real time as…the AV perceives new information from its sensors," including the "video camera," from which the trajectory planning process selects the stopping place (stop position) to which the vehicle is driven ([0005], [0079], [0120], [0129]). The camera and camera referenced stop place selection are integral to the Iagnemma system already combined with Sorokin for claim 1, so claim 9 is obvious over the same combination for the reasons given there; in any event, using a known onboard camera to set the stop location is the use of known sensing for its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorokin (US 2019/0389366 A1) in view of Iagnemma (US 2018/0113456 A1), further in view of Yu (US 2019/0118705 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma discloses the control system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the projecting unit comprises a front projector arranged on a front bumper of the vehicle. Sorokin discloses that the lighting module projects the set of symbols onto the ground in front of the vehicle but does not specify a front-bumper mounting location.
Yu teaches a vehicle mounted light projector that projects a stop indicating projection element onto the road surface in front of the vehicle and that "may be located in other areas on the autonomous vehicle…such as areas near the front bumper, front hood, or dashboard area" ([0040]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange Sorokin's (as modified by Iagnemma) projecting unit as a front projector on the front bumper of the vehicle, as taught by Yu, in order to provide an unobstructed illuminating path for projecting the stop indicating projection element onto the road surface in front of, or directly under the front end of, the vehicle; selecting the front bumper location is at most a predictable choice among the known projector mounting locations taught by Yu, yielding the expected result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorokin (US 2019/0389366 A1) in view of Iagnemma (US 2018/0113456 A1), further in view of Imaishi (US 2017/0259734 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma discloses the control system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the projecting unit comprises a rear projector arranged on a rear bumper of the vehicle, and projects the projection element onto a road surface on a rear side of the vehicle after the travel controlling unit stops the vehicle at the stop position.
Imaishi teaches a vehicle mounted projecting unit comprising a rear projector — "a projection lamp or a laser mounted in a rear portion of the vehicle" — that "illuminates a rear road surface with light, to display a graphic or the like" ([0030], [0045]), projecting the graphic onto the road surface behind the vehicle in a form that a person to the rear can intuitively understand ([0072]). Imaishi further teaches performing this rear road surface projection while the vehicle is stopped, including while "the vehicle 100 is at rest" ([0108]–[0109]) and continuing the projection after the vehicle has stopped and the engine has been turned off ([0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide the projecting unit of the Sorokin/Iagnemma combination with a rear projector that projects the stop indicating projection element onto the road surface behind the vehicle after the travel controlling unit stops the vehicle at the stop position, as taught by Imaishi, in order to convey the stop position to a person located behind the vehicle once it has stopped — extending Sorokin's purpose of giving nearby road users an early, intuitive indication of the vehicle's stopping location (Sorokin [0007], [0014]) to persons positioned to the rear, consistent with Imaishi's teaching that a graphic projected on the rear road surface is intuitively understood by those behind the vehicle ([0072]). Arranging Imaishi's rear portion mounted projector specifically on the rear bumper is a predictable choice of mounting location, the rear bumper being a conventional location for projecting onto the road directly behind/under the rear end of the vehicle. The modification arranges known projector elements according to their established functions to yield predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorokin (US 2019/0389366 A1) in view of Iagnemma (US 2018/0113456 A1), further in view of Lacaze (US 2021/0024068 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma discloses the control system according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle comprises an operation unit for an operation made by an operator.
Lacaze teaches an autonomous, route following, drive by wire work vehicle (a waste collection truck) that comprises an operation unit for an operation made by an operator: a human operator performs a collection operation by emptying refuse into the large opening in the back of the truck ([0024], [0027]), and the operator uses "an interface such as a switch, verbal gesture, or hand gesture to indicate to the controller in the truck to move to the next location or to wait" ([0039]), the operator further having "an interface that can command the autonomous waste collections truck to automatically move forwards or backwards along the route" ([0041]) and a switch the operator presses to direct the truck to go or wait ([0020], [0059], switch 701). Lacaze thus teaches a vehicle comprising an operation unit for an operation made by an operator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the autonomous vehicle of the Sorokin/Iagnemma combination as a work vehicle comprising an operation unit for an operation made by an operator, as taught by Lacaze, in order to adapt the autonomous vehicle to a collection or utility task carried out in cooperation with a human operator — the predictable result being an autonomous vehicle by which an operator performs an operation (e.g., loading refuse) and/or directs the vehicle. The combination merely applies a known operator unit arrangement to a known autonomous driving vehicle according to their established functions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma and Lacaze discloses the control system according to claim 7, further comprising the vehicle is a garbage vehicle including a garbage inlet at a rear portion of the vehicle, the garbage inlet serving as the operation unit (Lacaze further teaches that the vehicle is a garbage vehicle including a garbage inlet at a rear portion of the vehicle, the garbage inlet serving as the operation unit — Lacaze discloses an autonomous waste collection truck that "contains a large opening in the back" into which the operator dumps refuse ([0024]; see also [0047]), that rear opening being the operation unit at which the operator performs the loading operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to implement the operation unit of the combination as the rear garbage inlet of a garbage vehicle, as expressly taught by Lacaze, this being no more than the use of a known refuse-vehicle structure according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Regarding claim 10, Sorokin in view of Iagnemma and Lacaze discloses the control system according to claim 8, further comprising a camera that takes an image around the vehicle (Iagnemma's onboard "monocular or stereo video cameras," from which the stopping place is selected, [0005, [0120]; Lacaze's EO/IR camera, [0031]), wherein the stop position setting unit sets, when detecting garbage accumulated at a garbage collection station existing ahead of the traveling direction of the vehicle by means of the camera, the stop position based on a position of the detected garbage (Lacaze further teaches setting the stop position, upon camera detecting garbage at a collection station ahead, based on the detected garbage position: a camera-based "bin detector" differentiates refuse collection points by "color, shape, and texture" ([0030], [0042]), the truck "automatically stops as to align the back of the truck…with the detected bins" ([0030]; claim 5), and the refuse may be "left by the side of the road in an unpackaged form" ([0051]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to set the stop position based on the camera-detected position of garbage accumulated at a collection station ahead, as taught by Lacaze, to align the vehicle with the refuse and minimize loading distance ([0029]–[0030]) — a known technique yielding the predictable result of stopping at the garbage to be collected, with a reasonable expectation of success.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights