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 § 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 2-21 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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 cite “cause… the AV to travel the segment of the route…” It is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed what “causing” the AV to travel the segment of the route entails. This could potentially be controlling the vehicle to follow the trajectory, or it could be sending a signal to initiate control, or providing instructions to a driver to carry out the trip. Language the more particularly points out and distinctly claims what is occurring would overcome the rejection (such as “control the AV to travel…”)
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed towards a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 2 cites:
A method comprising:
identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
causing, by a processing device, the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could be shown map data, and identify which data is associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold value. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment, consider its grade value, and determine that a segment is above a threshold level. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite determining based on grade and duration of segment a speed and gear plan for the segment. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment’s length and grade and determine a speed and gear plan for it (a steep down hill long portion requires a particular gear and low speed for safety). Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite identifying map data, identifying segments, and determining gear and speed plans using a device, a processor, a memory, a computer, processing circuitry, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite causing the AV to travel a segment. The previously listed action is described at a high level of generality. The sending, receiving and production of signals is considered well known, common, and conventional. Producing signals, sending and receiving data and performing functions known in the art is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 cites:
A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to:
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV),the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could be shown map data, and identify which data is associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold value. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment, consider its grade value, and determine that a segment is above a threshold level. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite determining based on grade and duration of segment a speed and gear plan for the segment. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment’s length and grade and determine a speed and gear plan for it (a steep down hill long portion requires a particular gear and low speed for safety). Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite identifying map data, identifying segments, and determining gear and speed plans using a device, a processor, a memory, a computer, processing circuitry, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite causing the AV to travel a segment. The previously listed action is described at a high level of generality. The sending, receiving and production of signals is considered well known, common, and conventional. Producing signals, sending and receiving data and performing functions known in the art is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 cites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
The claims recite identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could be shown map data, and identify which data is associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold value. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment, consider its grade value, and determine that a segment is above a threshold level. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
The claims recite determining based on grade and duration of segment a speed and gear plan for the segment. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could mentally consider a segment’s length and grade and determine a speed and gear plan for it (a steep down hill long portion requires a particular gear and low speed for safety). Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite identifying map data, identifying segments, and determining gear and speed plans using a device, a processor, a memory, a computer, processing circuitry, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite causing the AV to travel a segment. The previously listed action is described at a high level of generality. The sending, receiving and production of signals is considered well known, common, and conventional. Producing signals, sending and receiving data and performing functions known in the art is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 cites:
The method of claim 2, wherein:
the determining of the corresponding gear is further based on the map data embedded with adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan for segments of the route based on physical vehicle data of the AV and route data of the route; and
the causing of the AV to travel the segment of the route is further based on the map data embedded with the adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan.
Claim 4 cites:
The method of claim 3, wherein the map data is further embedded with one or more of:
acceleration data;
a type of declaration for one or more segments of the route based on the physical vehicle data, wherein the type of deceleration comprises one or more of regenerative braking, friction braking, engine braking, downshifting, exhaust braking, or using drive line retarders.
recommended lane data;
historical wind data; or traffic data.
Claim 5 cites:
The method of claim 3, wherein the physical vehicle data comprises one or more of:
mass of the AV;
engine brake capability of the AV;
power rating of propulsion unit of the AV;
available transmission gear ratios of the AV; or wheelbase data of the AV.
Claim 6 cites:
The method of claim 2, wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Claim 7 cites:
The method of claim 2 further comprising, while the AV is travelling the route, identifying current environmental sensing data for a portion of the route, wherein the causing of the AV to travel the segment of the route is further based on the current environmental sensing data.
Claim 8 cites:
The method of claim 7, wherein the identifying of the current environmental sensing data comprises receiving, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV.
Claim 10 cites:
The system of claim 9, wherein:
the processing device is to determine the corresponding gear further based on the map data embedded with adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan for segments of the route based on physical vehicle data of the AV and route data of the route; and
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the map data embedded with the adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan.
Claim 11 cites:
The system of claim 10, wherein the map data is further embedded with one or more of:
acceleration data;
a type of declaration for one or more segments of the route based on the physical vehicle data, wherein the type of deceleration comprises one or more of regenerative braking, friction braking, engine braking, downshifting, exhaust braking, or using drive line retarders.
recommended lane data;
historical wind data; or traffic data.
Claim 12 cites:
The system of claim 10, wherein the physical vehicle data comprises one or more of:
mass of the AV;
engine brake capability of the AV;
power rating of propulsion unit of the AV;
available transmission gear ratios of the AV; or
wheelbase data of the AV.
Claim 13 cites:
The system of claim 9, wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Claim 14 cites:
The system of claim 9, wherein:
the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, identify current environmental sensing data for a portion of the route; and
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the current environmental sensing data.
Claim 15 cites:
The system of claim 14, wherein to identify the current environmental sensing data, the processing device is to receive, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV.
Claim 17 cites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein:
the processing device is to determine the corresponding gear further based on the map data embedded with adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan for segments of the route based on physical vehicle data of the AV and route data of the route; and
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the map data embedded with the adjusted road speed limits of the speed plan.
Claim 18 cites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the map data is further embedded with one or more of:
acceleration data;
a type of declaration for one or more segments of the route based on the physical vehicle data, wherein the type of deceleration comprises one or more of regenerative braking, friction braking, engine braking, downshifting, exhaust braking, or using drive line retarders.
recommended lane data;
historical wind data; or
traffic data.
Claim 19 cites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the physical vehicle data comprises one or more of:
mass of the AV;
engine brake capability of the AV;
power rating of propulsion unit of the AV;
available transmission gear ratios of the AV; or
wheelbase data of the AV.
Claim 20 cites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Claim 21 cites:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein:
the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, receive, from a perception system of the AV, current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV; and
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the current environmental sensing data.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental.
Claims 7 and 14 cite identifying current environmental sensing data for a portion of the route . This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that processing circuitry be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “processor”, or “memory”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. A person could be shown environmental sensing data and identify it as such as well as relevant information inside it. Thus this step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations
Claims are evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea or adding/performing insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claims recite identifying current environmental sensing data using a device, a processor, a memory, a computer, processing circuitry, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The above listed actions are recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry that facilitate the steps are described by the specification at a high level of generality. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental/extra solution processes using a generic or general-purpose processor. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims recite causing the AV to travel a segment, receiving environmental sensing data. The previously listed action is described at a high level of generality. The sending, receiving and production of signals is considered well known, common, and conventional. Producing signals, sending and receiving data and performing functions known in the art is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims are evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than possible uses for the output of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., possible uses for information or mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that language that more explicitly states a control step (such as amending “causing… the AV to travel the segment” to “controlling… the AV to travel the segment” would overcome the rejection under 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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11851062 B2 and 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12296828 B2.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claims 1-20 and 1-20 of the issued U.S. Patents, wherein both of the respective claims include similar limitations provided in bold.
A method comprising:
identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
causing, by a processing device, the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Claim 6 of 12296828 B2 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the driving constraint data comprises at least one of a gear to be used, a rate of change of speed, or a lane to be used.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2 so that prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to do this because if there are constraints that require specific speeds or gears to be used for certain segments, that could be considered a gear and speed plan for traveling the segment of the route. This would allow the vehicle to accurately plan a path that is safe and possible, and then accurately know how long the trip can take and carry it out effectively.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claims 1-20 and 1-20 of the issued U.S. Patents, wherein both of the respective claims include similar limitations provided in bold.
A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to:
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV),the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Claim 6 of 12296828 B2 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the driving constraint data comprises at least one of a gear to be used, a rate of change of speed, or a lane to be used.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2 so that prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to do this because if there are constraints that require specific speeds or gears to be used for certain segments, that could be considered a gear and speed plan for traveling the segment of the route. This would allow the vehicle to accurately plan a path that is safe and possible, and then accurately know how long the trip can take and carry it out effectively.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claims 1-20 and 1-20 of the issued U.S. Patents, wherein both of the respective claims include similar limitations provided in bold.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to:
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments;
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value;
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan and the corresponding gear.
Claim 6 of 12296828 B2 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the driving constraint data comprises at least one of a gear to be used, a rate of change of speed, or a lane to be used.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify claim of Patent No. 11851062 B2 in view of 12296828 B2 so that prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a corresponding gear and a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to do this because if there are constraints that require specific speeds or gears to be used for certain segments, that could be considered a gear and speed plan for traveling the segment of the route. This would allow the vehicle to accurately plan a path that is safe and possible, and then accurately know how long the trip can take and carry it out effectively.
Regarding Claims 2-21: Applicant provided similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-20 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitations/steps or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its functions(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note, Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader, with the exception of the sensor), there are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Examiner notes wherein the nonstatutory double patenting rejections provided herein would be overcome with a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321© or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provision 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 provision 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 1.32(b).
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.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 14-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallstedt et al (US Pub 2020/0139954 A1), hereafter known as Wallstedt in light of Hawley et al (US Pub 2020/0141486 A1), hereafter known as Hawley.
For Claim 2, Wallstedt teaches A method comprising:
identifying map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments; ([0029] In example implementation 200, the speed planning device calculates a slope of the section to determine a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section. As further shown by reference number 220, a slope (solid line) is identified for the elevation change (i.e., the decline) of the analyzed section of the route (dotted line). Accordingly, the speed planning device may identify how steep the decline is based on the calculated slope. The speed planning device may calculate a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section of the route based on the calculated slope and/or the length of the section, as described further herein.
[0030] According to some implementations described herein, when calculating the slope of a section and/or subsection, the speed planning device may identify a start point and an end point of the corresponding section and/or subsection along the route. Using the start point and the end point, for each section or subsection, the speed planning device may reference the elevation information from the route information system (e.g., which may include a mapping of elevation at locations along the route) to identify an elevation at the start point and an elevation at the end point. Accordingly, for each section or subsection, based on (1) a difference between the elevation at the start point and the elevation at the end point and (2) a distance between the start point and the end point (i.e., the length of the section and/or subsection), the speed planning device may calculate the slope of the section and/or subsection.)
identifying a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value; ([0059] FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example implementation 700 associated with speed planning for a vehicle described herein. In FIG. 7, a speed planning analysis may be performed for an example section of a route that is to be traversed by a vehicle. Similar to example implementations 300, 400, and 500, the speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 is represented by a first graph and second graph and may be performed by a speed planning device. The speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 includes a steep decline analysis. As described herein, the steep decline analysis may be performed by the speed planning device to enable the speed planning device to set a constant speed for the vehicle to descend a steep decline (e.g., a decline that has a slope exceeding a defined threshold). In some implementations, the speed planning device may perform the steep decline analysis using a speed planning model described herein.
[0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determining, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and ([0089] Speed plan module 1130 may include one or more devices configured to select speeds for a speed plan generated by speed planning device 1010, as described herein. As shown, speed plan module 1130 may be included within and/or implemented by speed planning device 1010. Speed plan module 1130 may receive candidate speeds for a section of a route from speed calculator module 1120. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may select a slowest of the candidate speeds for a particular section and/or subsection of the route. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may store and/or select preconfigured speeds (e.g., as set by a speed limit and/or fixed speed regulation of the route) and/or may store and/or select constant or maximum speeds (e.g., a constant speed for a decline) for one or more points of a route, as described herein.
[0062] As shown in FIG. 7, the speed planning device may set, in a speed plan, a constant or maximum speed for points along the steep decline without regard to candidate speeds calculated for the same points using a speed planning analysis (e.g., a section-by-section speed planning analysis), as described herein. In some implementations, the speed planning device may calculate the constant or maximum speed for the steep decline based on the slope of the steep decline and/or length of the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may maintain a mapping of constant or maximum speeds for the steep declines and/or may flag points along the route where the speed of the vehicle is to be constant (or less than the maximum) according to the steep decline analysis (e.g., similar to the route information identifying speed limits and/or fixed speed regulations for certain points along the route). In FIG. 7, a constant/maximum speed flag is represented by a large dotted line along the distance of the steep decline. Accordingly, the speed planning device may reference the mapping and/or flagged points along the route when generating speed plans for sections of the route that include the steep declines.
causing, by a processing device, the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan. ([0100] As further shown in FIG. 12, process 1200 may include providing the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan (block 1270). For example, the speed planning device (e.g., using speed plan module 1130, and/or the like) may provide the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled so as to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan, as described above.
Figure 12)
Wallstedt does not teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear.
Hawley, however, does teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear. ([0111] The autonomous driving module(s) 160 either independently or in combination with the engine braking system 170 can be configured to determine travel path(s), current autonomous driving maneuvers for the vehicle 100, future autonomous driving maneuvers and/or modifications to current autonomous driving maneuvers based on data acquired by the sensor system 120, driving scene models, and/or data from any other suitable source such as determinations from the sensor data 250. “Driving maneuver” means one or more actions that affect the movement of a vehicle. Examples of driving maneuvers include: accelerating, decelerating, braking, turning, moving in a lateral direction of the vehicle 100, changing travel lanes, merging into a travel lane, and/or reversing, just to name a few possibilities. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured can be configured to implement determined driving maneuvers. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can cause, directly or indirectly, such autonomous driving maneuvers to be implemented. As used herein, “cause” or “causing” means to make, command, instruct, and/or enable an event or action to occur or at least be in a state where such event or action may occur, either in a direct or indirect manner. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured to execute various vehicle functions and/or to transmit data to, receive data from, interact with, and/or control the vehicle 100 or one or more systems thereof (e.g., one or more of vehicle systems 140).
[0069] At 460, the downshift module 225 determines if the grade of the road satisfies the road grade threshold. The grade of road may satisfy the road grade threshold 285 when it is greater than the road grade threshold 285. If the grade satisfies the road grade threshold, the method 400 may continue at 470. Else the method 400 may continue at 480.
[0070] At 470, the downshift module 225 may cause the transmission of the vehicle to operate in the second gear. In some embodiments, the downshift module 225 may cause the vehicle 100 to operate in the second gear by sending an instruction or signal to the transmission system 145 to downshift to the second gear. Other methods may be used.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Hawley such that a gear plan is created and held to because while considering speeds for a vehicle, the gear the vehicle is in will have a large impact on the vehicle’s ability to maintain that speed. By considering the gear the vehicle is in as part of the plan, the vehicle can ensure that the vehicle has the ability to maintain safe and optimal speeds during its trip.
For Claim 6, Wallstedt teaches The method of claim 2,
Wallstedt does not teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Casson, however, does teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV. ([0045] Road network database 308, for example, defines a road network that is constituted of an interconnected road network of many road segments within the mining environment. For each road segment in the road network, database 308 identifies road grades and information regarding the location and layout of intersections in the road network. Road network database 308 can be used to define constraints to the vehicle's candidate speed profiles that include a particular maximum speed for traveling up steep grades, intersections that will require the vehicle to stop or slow down, and the like.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Casson such that the map information is of a road network associated with a route of the AV because the road network would allow the system to understand how one segment connects to another, and would be useful in other applications such as rerouting or detouring when original routes are not feasible or suboptimal.
For Claim 7, Wallstedt teaches The method of claim 2 further comprising, while the AV is travelling the route, identifying current environmental sensing data for a portion of the route, wherein the causing of the AV to travel the segment of the route is further based on the current environmental sensing data. ([0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
([0021])
For Claim 8, Wallstedt teaches The method of claim 7,
Wallstedt does not teach wherein the identifying of the current environmental sensing data comprises receiving, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV.
Hawley, however, does teach that wherein the identifying of the current environmental sensing data comprises receiving, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV. ([0097])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt with Hawley’s use of having current environmental sensor data being associated with the position of objects proximate the AV because it would be useful to know where objects are so that they can be avoided as to prevent accidents and collisions.
For Claim 9, Wallstedt teaches A system comprising:
a memory device; and ([0082] One or more devices of environment 1000 (e.g., speed planning device 1010, vehicle control device 1020, route information system 1030, or user interface device 1040) is implemented as a processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component. The processor is implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, one or more of the devices includes one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform a function. In some implementations, the one or more devices may include one or more memories, including a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory) that may store information and/or instructions for use by the one or more devices. In some implementations, one or more devices of environment 1000 may include a memory (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium) capable of storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to perform one or more processes and/or methods described herein. A computer-readable medium is defined herein as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device includes memory space within a single physical storage device or memory space spread across multiple physical storage devices. The one or more devices may execute the instructions to perform various control functions and processes (e.g., associated with generating, providing, and/or using a speed plan for a vehicle).)
a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to: ([0082] One or more devices of environment 1000 (e.g., speed planning device 1010, vehicle control device 1020, route information system 1030, or user interface device 1040) is implemented as a processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component. The processor is implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, one or more of the devices includes one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform a function. In some implementations, the one or more devices may include one or more memories, including a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory) that may store information and/or instructions for use by the one or more devices. In some implementations, one or more devices of environment 1000 may include a memory (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium) capable of storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to perform one or more processes and/or methods described herein. A computer-readable medium is defined herein as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device includes memory space within a single physical storage device or memory space spread across multiple physical storage devices. The one or more devices may execute the instructions to perform various control functions and processes (e.g., associated with generating, providing, and/or using a speed plan for a vehicle).)
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV),the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments; (([0029] In example implementation 200, the speed planning device calculates a slope of the section to determine a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section. As further shown by reference number 220, a slope (solid line) is identified for the elevation change (i.e., the decline) of the analyzed section of the route (dotted line). Accordingly, the speed planning device may identify how steep the decline is based on the calculated slope. The speed planning device may calculate a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section of the route based on the calculated slope and/or the length of the section, as described further herein.
[0030] According to some implementations described herein, when calculating the slope of a section and/or subsection, the speed planning device may identify a start point and an end point of the corresponding section and/or subsection along the route. Using the start point and the end point, for each section or subsection, the speed planning device may reference the elevation information from the route information system (e.g., which may include a mapping of elevation at locations along the route) to identify an elevation at the start point and an elevation at the end point. Accordingly, for each section or subsection, based on (1) a difference between the elevation at the start point and the elevation at the end point and (2) a distance between the start point and the end point (i.e., the length of the section and/or subsection), the speed planning device may calculate the slope of the section and/or subsection.))
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value; ([0059] FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example implementation 700 associated with speed planning for a vehicle described herein. In FIG. 7, a speed planning analysis may be performed for an example section of a route that is to be traversed by a vehicle. Similar to example implementations 300, 400, and 500, the speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 is represented by a first graph and second graph and may be performed by a speed planning device. The speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 includes a steep decline analysis. As described herein, the steep decline analysis may be performed by the speed planning device to enable the speed planning device to set a constant speed for the vehicle to descend a steep decline (e.g., a decline that has a slope exceeding a defined threshold). In some implementations, the speed planning device may perform the steep decline analysis using a speed planning model described herein.
[0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and ([0089] Speed plan module 1130 may include one or more devices configured to select speeds for a speed plan generated by speed planning device 1010, as described herein. As shown, speed plan module 1130 may be included within and/or implemented by speed planning device 1010. Speed plan module 1130 may receive candidate speeds for a section of a route from speed calculator module 1120. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may select a slowest of the candidate speeds for a particular section and/or subsection of the route. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may store and/or select preconfigured speeds (e.g., as set by a speed limit and/or fixed speed regulation of the route) and/or may store and/or select constant or maximum speeds (e.g., a constant speed for a decline) for one or more points of a route, as described herein.
[0062] As shown in FIG. 7, the speed planning device may set, in a speed plan, a constant or maximum speed for points along the steep decline without regard to candidate speeds calculated for the same points using a speed planning analysis (e.g., a section-by-section speed planning analysis), as described herein. In some implementations, the speed planning device may calculate the constant or maximum speed for the steep decline based on the slope of the steep decline and/or length of the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may maintain a mapping of constant or maximum speeds for the steep declines and/or may flag points along the route where the speed of the vehicle is to be constant (or less than the maximum) according to the steep decline analysis (e.g., similar to the route information identifying speed limits and/or fixed speed regulations for certain points along the route). In FIG. 7, a constant/maximum speed flag is represented by a large dotted line along the distance of the steep decline. Accordingly, the speed planning device may reference the mapping and/or flagged points along the route when generating speed plans for sections of the route that include the steep declines.)
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan. ([0100] As further shown in FIG. 12, process 1200 may include providing the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan (block 1270). For example, the speed planning device (e.g., using speed plan module 1130, and/or the like) may provide the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled so as to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan, as described above.
Figure 12)
Wallstedt does not teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear.
Hawley, however, does teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear. ([0111] The autonomous driving module(s) 160 either independently or in combination with the engine braking system 170 can be configured to determine travel path(s), current autonomous driving maneuvers for the vehicle 100, future autonomous driving maneuvers and/or modifications to current autonomous driving maneuvers based on data acquired by the sensor system 120, driving scene models, and/or data from any other suitable source such as determinations from the sensor data 250. “Driving maneuver” means one or more actions that affect the movement of a vehicle. Examples of driving maneuvers include: accelerating, decelerating, braking, turning, moving in a lateral direction of the vehicle 100, changing travel lanes, merging into a travel lane, and/or reversing, just to name a few possibilities. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured can be configured to implement determined driving maneuvers. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can cause, directly or indirectly, such autonomous driving maneuvers to be implemented. As used herein, “cause” or “causing” means to make, command, instruct, and/or enable an event or action to occur or at least be in a state where such event or action may occur, either in a direct or indirect manner. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured to execute various vehicle functions and/or to transmit data to, receive data from, interact with, and/or control the vehicle 100 or one or more systems thereof (e.g., one or more of vehicle systems 140).
[0069] At 460, the downshift module 225 determines if the grade of the road satisfies the road grade threshold. The grade of road may satisfy the road grade threshold 285 when it is greater than the road grade threshold 285. If the grade satisfies the road grade threshold, the method 400 may continue at 470. Else the method 400 may continue at 480.
[0070] At 470, the downshift module 225 may cause the transmission of the vehicle to operate in the second gear. In some embodiments, the downshift module 225 may cause the vehicle 100 to operate in the second gear by sending an instruction or signal to the transmission system 145 to downshift to the second gear. Other methods may be used.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Hawley such that a gear plan is created and held to because while considering speeds for a vehicle, the gear the vehicle is in will have a large impact on the vehicle’s ability to maintain that speed. By considering the gear the vehicle is in as part of the plan, the vehicle can ensure that the vehicle has the ability to maintain safe and optimal speeds during its trip.
For Claim 14, Wallstedt teaches The system of claim 9, wherein:
the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, identify current environmental sensing data for a portion of the route; and ([0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
([0021])
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the current environmental sensing data. ([0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
([0021])
For Claim 15, Wallstedt teaches The system of claim 14,
wherein to identify the current environmental sensing data, the processing device is to receive, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV.
Hawley, however, does teach that wherein to identify the current environmental sensing data, the processing device is to receive, from a perception system of the AV, the current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV.
([0097])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt with Hawley’s use of having current environmental sensor data being associated with the position of objects proximate the AV because it would be useful to know where objects are so that they can be avoided as to prevent accidents and collisions.
For Claim 16, Wallstedt teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: ([0082] One or more devices of environment 1000 (e.g., speed planning device 1010, vehicle control device 1020, route information system 1030, or user interface device 1040) is implemented as a processor, such as a central processing unit (CPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or another type of processing component. The processor is implemented in hardware, firmware, and/or a combination of hardware and software. In some implementations, one or more of the devices includes one or more processors capable of being programmed to perform a function. In some implementations, the one or more devices may include one or more memories, including a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and/or another type of dynamic or static storage device (e.g., a flash memory, a magnetic memory, and/or an optical memory) that may store information and/or instructions for use by the one or more devices. In some implementations, one or more devices of environment 1000 may include a memory (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable medium) capable of storing instructions, that when executed, cause the processor to perform one or more processes and/or methods described herein. A computer-readable medium is defined herein as a non-transitory memory device. A memory device includes memory space within a single physical storage device or memory space spread across multiple physical storage devices. The one or more devices may execute the instructions to perform various control functions and processes (e.g., associated with generating, providing, and/or using a speed plan for a vehicle).)
identify map data associated with a route of an autonomous vehicle (AV), the map data comprising grade data for one or more road segments; ([0029] In example implementation 200, the speed planning device calculates a slope of the section to determine a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section. As further shown by reference number 220, a slope (solid line) is identified for the elevation change (i.e., the decline) of the analyzed section of the route (dotted line). Accordingly, the speed planning device may identify how steep the decline is based on the calculated slope. The speed planning device may calculate a candidate speed at which the vehicle may traverse the section of the route based on the calculated slope and/or the length of the section, as described further herein.
[0030] According to some implementations described herein, when calculating the slope of a section and/or subsection, the speed planning device may identify a start point and an end point of the corresponding section and/or subsection along the route. Using the start point and the end point, for each section or subsection, the speed planning device may reference the elevation information from the route information system (e.g., which may include a mapping of elevation at locations along the route) to identify an elevation at the start point and an elevation at the end point. Accordingly, for each section or subsection, based on (1) a difference between the elevation at the start point and the elevation at the end point and (2) a distance between the start point and the end point (i.e., the length of the section and/or subsection), the speed planning device may calculate the slope of the section and/or subsection.)
identify a segment of the route that has a grade value that meets a threshold grade value; ([0059] FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example implementation 700 associated with speed planning for a vehicle described herein. In FIG. 7, a speed planning analysis may be performed for an example section of a route that is to be traversed by a vehicle. Similar to example implementations 300, 400, and 500, the speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 is represented by a first graph and second graph and may be performed by a speed planning device. The speed planning analysis of example implementation 700 includes a steep decline analysis. As described herein, the steep decline analysis may be performed by the speed planning device to enable the speed planning device to set a constant speed for the vehicle to descend a steep decline (e.g., a decline that has a slope exceeding a defined threshold). In some implementations, the speed planning device may perform the steep decline analysis using a speed planning model described herein.
[0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
prior to travelling the segment of the route, determine, based on the grade data and duration of the segment, a speed plan for travelling the segment of the route; and([0089] Speed plan module 1130 may include one or more devices configured to select speeds for a speed plan generated by speed planning device 1010, as described herein. As shown, speed plan module 1130 may be included within and/or implemented by speed planning device 1010. Speed plan module 1130 may receive candidate speeds for a section of a route from speed calculator module 1120. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may select a slowest of the candidate speeds for a particular section and/or subsection of the route. In some implementations, speed plan module 1130 may store and/or select preconfigured speeds (e.g., as set by a speed limit and/or fixed speed regulation of the route) and/or may store and/or select constant or maximum speeds (e.g., a constant speed for a decline) for one or more points of a route, as described herein.
[0062] As shown in FIG. 7, the speed planning device may set, in a speed plan, a constant or maximum speed for points along the steep decline without regard to candidate speeds calculated for the same points using a speed planning analysis (e.g., a section-by-section speed planning analysis), as described herein. In some implementations, the speed planning device may calculate the constant or maximum speed for the steep decline based on the slope of the steep decline and/or length of the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may maintain a mapping of constant or maximum speeds for the steep declines and/or may flag points along the route where the speed of the vehicle is to be constant (or less than the maximum) according to the steep decline analysis (e.g., similar to the route information identifying speed limits and/or fixed speed regulations for certain points along the route). In FIG. 7, a constant/maximum speed flag is represented by a large dotted line along the distance of the steep decline. Accordingly, the speed planning device may reference the mapping and/or flagged points along the route when generating speed plans for sections of the route that include the steep declines.
cause the AV to travel the segment of the route based on the speed plan. . ([0100] As further shown in FIG. 12, process 1200 may include providing the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan (block 1270). For example, the speed planning device (e.g., using speed plan module 1130, and/or the like) may provide the speed plan to permit the vehicle to be controlled so as to traverse the section according to the one or more speeds of the speed plan, as described above.
Figure 12)
Wallstedt does not teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear.
Hawley, however, does teach a corresponding gear and controlling the vehicle on the corresponding gear. ([0111] The autonomous driving module(s) 160 either independently or in combination with the engine braking system 170 can be configured to determine travel path(s), current autonomous driving maneuvers for the vehicle 100, future autonomous driving maneuvers and/or modifications to current autonomous driving maneuvers based on data acquired by the sensor system 120, driving scene models, and/or data from any other suitable source such as determinations from the sensor data 250. “Driving maneuver” means one or more actions that affect the movement of a vehicle. Examples of driving maneuvers include: accelerating, decelerating, braking, turning, moving in a lateral direction of the vehicle 100, changing travel lanes, merging into a travel lane, and/or reversing, just to name a few possibilities. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured can be configured to implement determined driving maneuvers. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can cause, directly or indirectly, such autonomous driving maneuvers to be implemented. As used herein, “cause” or “causing” means to make, command, instruct, and/or enable an event or action to occur or at least be in a state where such event or action may occur, either in a direct or indirect manner. The autonomous driving module(s) 160 can be configured to execute various vehicle functions and/or to transmit data to, receive data from, interact with, and/or control the vehicle 100 or one or more systems thereof (e.g., one or more of vehicle systems 140).
[0069] At 460, the downshift module 225 determines if the grade of the road satisfies the road grade threshold. The grade of road may satisfy the road grade threshold 285 when it is greater than the road grade threshold 285. If the grade satisfies the road grade threshold, the method 400 may continue at 470. Else the method 400 may continue at 480.
[0070] At 470, the downshift module 225 may cause the transmission of the vehicle to operate in the second gear. In some embodiments, the downshift module 225 may cause the vehicle 100 to operate in the second gear by sending an instruction or signal to the transmission system 145 to downshift to the second gear. Other methods may be used.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Hawley such that a gear plan is created and held to because while considering speeds for a vehicle, the gear the vehicle is in will have a large impact on the vehicle’s ability to maintain that speed. By considering the gear the vehicle is in as part of the plan, the vehicle can ensure that the vehicle has the ability to maintain safe and optimal speeds during its trip.
For Claim 21, Wallstedt teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein:
the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, receive, from a perception system of the AV, current environmental sensing data
the processing device is to cause the AV to travel the segment of the route further based on the current environmental sensing data. ([0061] Accordingly, as shown in example implementation 700, the speed planning device may perform a steep decline analysis (e.g., in parallel to a speed planning analysis as described herein) to detect a steep decline along the route and/or set a constant speed for the vehicle to traverse the steep decline. In some implementations, the speed planning device may detect the steep decline based on an analysis of the elevation. For example, the speed planning device may identify elevations along the route and calculate slopes of declines along the route (e.g., using elevations of pairs of points and distances between the pairs of points), compare the slopes to the threshold slope for a steep decline, and determine that one or more declines are steep declines if the slopes satisfy the steep decline threshold. Additionally, or alternatively, the speed planning device may detect a steep decline based on one or more sensors (e.g., an accelerometer and/or gyroscope that detects inclines or declines on a route) of a vehicle associated with the speed planning device (e.g., a vehicle that traverses the route according to a speed plan generated by the speed planning device).
([0021])
Wallstedt does not teach the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, receive, from a perception system of the AV, current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV; and
Hawley, however, does teach the processing device is further to, while the AV is travelling the route, receive, from a perception system of the AV, current environmental sensing data associated with a position of one or more objects proximate the AV; and ([0097] Alternatively, or in addition, the sensor system 120 can include one or more environment sensors 122 configured to acquire, and/or sense driving environment data. “Driving environment data” includes data or information about the external environment in which an autonomous vehicle is located or one or more portions thereof. For example, the one or more environment sensors 122 can be configured to detect, quantify and/or sense obstacles in at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 and/or information/data about such obstacles. Such obstacles may be stationary objects and/or dynamic objects. The one or more environment sensors 122 can be configured to detect, measure, quantify and/or sense other things in the external environment of the vehicle 100, such as, for example, lane markers, signs, traffic lights, traffic signs, lane lines, crosswalks, curbs proximate the vehicle 100, off-road objects, etc.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt with Hawley’s use of having current environmental sensor data being associated with the position of objects proximate the AV because it would be useful to know where objects are so that they can be avoided as to prevent accidents and collisions.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallstedt in light of Hawley in light of Casson et al (2014/0297182 A1), hereafter known as Casson.
For Claim 13, Wallstedt teaches The system of claim 9,
Wallstedt does not teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Casson, however, does teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV. ([0045] Road network database 308, for example, defines a road network that is constituted of an interconnected road network of many road segments within the mining environment. For each road segment in the road network, database 308 identifies road grades and information regarding the location and layout of intersections in the road network. Road network database 308 can be used to define constraints to the vehicle's candidate speed profiles that include a particular maximum speed for traveling up steep grades, intersections that will require the vehicle to stop or slow down, and the like.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Casson such that the map information is of a road network associated with a route of the AV because the road network would allow the system to understand how one segment connects to another, and would be useful in other applications such as rerouting or detouring when original routes are not feasible or suboptimal.
For Claim 20, Wallstedt teaches The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16,
Wallstedt does not teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV.
Casson, however, does teach wherein the map data is of a road network associated with the route of the AV. ([0045] Road network database 308, for example, defines a road network that is constituted of an interconnected road network of many road segments within the mining environment. For each road segment in the road network, database 308 identifies road grades and information regarding the location and layout of intersections in the road network. Road network database 308 can be used to define constraints to the vehicle's candidate speed profiles that include a particular maximum speed for traveling up steep grades, intersections that will require the vehicle to stop or slow down, and the like.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wallstedt in light of Casson such that the map information is of a road network associated with a route of the AV because the road network would allow the system to understand how one segment connects to another, and would be useful in other applications such as rerouting or detouring when original routes are not feasible or suboptimal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dufford et al (US Pub 20170045137 A1) relates to downshifting in expectation of an upcoming slope. Zeng et al (US Pub 20160313133 A1) relates to adaptive planning for slopes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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.
/T.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights