This description relates to route planning for an autonomous vehicle.
An autonomous vehicle can drive safely without human intervention during part of a journey or an entire journey.
An autonomous vehicle includes sensors, actuators, computers, and communication devices to enable automated generation and following of routes through the environment. Some autonomous vehicles have wireless two-way communication capability to communicate with remotely-located command centers that may be manned by human monitors, to access data and information stored in a cloud service, and to communicate with emergency services.
As shown in
Given a desired goal position, a routing algorithm 20 determines a route 14 through the environment from the vehicle's current position 16 to the goal position 12. We sometimes call this process “route planning.” In some implementations, a route is a series of connected segments of roads, streets, and highways (which we sometimes refer to as road segments or simply segments).
Routing algorithms typically operate by analyzing road network information. Road network information typically is a digital representation of the structure, type, connectivity, and other relevant information about the road network. A road network is typically represented as a series of connected road segments. The road network information, in addition to identifying connectivity between road segments, may contain additional information about the physical and conceptual properties of each road segment, including but not limited to the geographic location, road name or number, road length and width, speed limit, direction of travel, lane edge boundary type, and any special information about a road segment such as whether it is a bus lane, whether it is a right-turn only or left-turn only lane, whether it is part of a highway, minor road, or dirt road, whether the road segment allows parking or standing, and other properties.
The routing algorithm typically identifies one or more candidate routes 22 from the current position to the goal position. Identification of the best, or optimal, route 14 from among the candidate routes is generally accomplished by employing algorithms (such as A*, D*, Dijkstra's algorithm, and others) that identify a route that minimizes a specified cost. This cost is typically a function of one or more criteria, often including the distance traveled along a candidate route, the expected time to travel along the candidate route when considering speed limits, traffic conditions, and other factors. The routing algorithm may identify one or more than one good routes to be presented to the rider (or other person, for example, an operator at a remote location) for selection or approval. In some cases, the one optimal route may simply be provided to a vehicle trajectory planning and control module 28, which has the function of guiding the vehicle toward the goal (we sometimes refer to the goal position or simply as the goal) along the optimal route.
As shown in
Road network information can have temporal information associated with it, to enable descriptions of traffic rules, parking rules, or other effects that are time dependent (e.g., a road segment that does not allow parking during standard business hours, or on weekends, for example), or to include information about expected travel time along a road segment at specific times of day (e.g., during rush hour).
In general, in an aspect, a determination is made of an ability of an autonomous vehicle to safely or robustly travel a road feature or a road segment or a route that is being considered for the autonomous vehicle as of a time or range of times. Route root conforms to properties of stored road network information. The road feature or road segment or route is eliminated from consideration if the computer has determined that the road feature or road segment or route cannot be safely or robustly traveled by the autonomous vehicle. The determination by the computer is based on properties of the environment in which the autonomous vehicle travels.
Implementations may include one or a combination of two or more of the following features. The environment includes road features. The properties of the environment include navigability by the autonomous vehicle. The properties of the environment include spatial characteristics of road features. The properties of the environment include connectivity characteristics of road features. The properties of the environment include spatial orientations of road features. The properties of the environment include locations of road work or traffic accidents. The properties of the environment include the road surface roughness of road features. The properties of the environment include curvature slope that affect visibility. The properties of the environment include characteristics of markings of road features. The properties of the environment include physical navigation challenges of road features associated with inclement weather. The computer determines an ability of the autonomous vehicle to safely or robustly travel each of a set of road features or road segments or routes.
The ability of the autonomous vehicle to safely or robustly travel a road feature or a road segment or a route depends on characteristics of sensors on the vehicle. The characteristics include an actual or estimated level of performance as a function of current or predicted future conditions. The computer determines the ability of the autonomous vehicle as of a given time. The route is one of two or more candidate routes determined by a route planning process. The ability of the autonomous vehicle to safely or robustly travel a road feature or a road segment or a route depends on characteristics of software processes. The software processes include processing of data from sensors on the vehicle. The software processes include motion planning. The software processes include decision-making. The software processes include vehicle motion control. The characteristics include an actual or estimated level of performance as a function of current or predicted future conditions.
These and other aspects, features, implementations, and advantages, and combinations of them, can be expressed as methods, systems, components, apparatus, program products, methods of doing business, means and steps for performing functions, and in other ways.
Other aspects, features, implementations, and advantages will become apparent from the following description and from the claims.
For route planning involving human-piloted vehicles, it is generally assumed that a route identified by a routing algorithm from a current position to a goal position that is composed of connected road segments is a route that can be driven safely by the driver. However, this assumption may not be valid for routes identified by the routing algorithm for an autonomous vehicle for various reasons. Autonomous vehicles may not be able to safely navigate certain road segments, intersections, or other geographic regions (which we will broadly refer to as road features) due to the specific properties of the road features and the vehicle's capabilities with respect to those road features. Also, autonomous vehicles may not be able to safely navigate certain road features during certain times of the day, periods of the year, or under certain weather conditions.
An example of the physical locations of sensors and software processes in a vehicle and at a cloud-based server and database is shown in
In many cases, this inability to safely navigate road features relates to characteristics of sensors and software processes that the autonomous vehicle uses to perceive the environment, process data from the sensors, understand conditions that are currently presented by and may at future times be presented by the perceived environment, perform motion planning, perform motion control, and make decisions based on those perceptions and understandings. Among other things, under certain conditions and at certain times, the ability of the sensors and processes to perceive the environment, understand the conditions, perform motion planning and motion control, and make the decisions may be degraded or lost or may be subject to unacceptable variation.
Examples of such degradation or unacceptable variation of sensor and software process outputs are as follows:
Sensors for Perceiving the Vehicle's Environment
As shown on
The ability of the software processes 44 to use such sensor data to compute such data products at specified levels of performance depends on the properties of the sensors, such as the detection range, resolution, noise characteristics, temperature dependence, and other factors. The ability to compute such data products at a specified level of performance may also depend on the environmental conditions, such as the properties of the ambient lighting (e.g., whether there is direct sunlight, diffuse sunlight, sunrise or sunset conditions, dusk, or darkness), the presence of mist, fog, smog, or air pollution, whether or not it is raining or snowing or has recently rained or snowed, and other factors.
Generally, it is possible to characterize the capability of a particular sensor (and associated processing software) to yield a data product of interest at a specific level of performance (e.g., a specific level of accuracy of detection, range of detection, rate of true or false positives, or other metric) as a function of a measurable metric relating to the environmental conditions. For example, it is generally possible to characterize the range at which a particular monocular camera sensor can detect moving vehicles at a specified performance level, as a function of ambient illumination levels associated with daytime and nighttime conditions.
Further, it is generally possible to identify specific failure modes of the sensor, i.e., conditions or circumstances where the sensor will reliably degrade or fail to generate a data product of interest, and to identify data products that the sensor has not been designed to be able to generate.
Software for Processing Data from Sensors
As noted above, data from sensors can be used by software processes 44 to yield a variety of data products of interest. The ability of each of the software processes to generate data products that conform to specified levels of performance depends on properties of the sensor software processes (e.g., algorithms), which may limit their performance in scenarios with certain properties, such as a very high or very low density of data features relevant to the sensing task at hand.
For example, an algorithm (we sometimes use the terms software process and algorithm interchangeably) for pedestrian detection that relies on data from a monocular vision sensor may degrade or fail in its ability to detect, at a specified level of performance (e.g., a specified processing rate), more than a certain number of pedestrians and may therefore degrade or fail (in the sense of not detecting all pedestrians in a scene at the specified level of performance) in scenarios with a large number of pedestrians. Also, an algorithm for determining the location of the ego vehicle (termed “localization”) based on comparison of LIDAR data collected from a vehicle-mounted sensor to data stored in a map database may fail in its ability to determine the vehicle's current position at a specified level of performance (e.g., at a specified degree of positional accuracy) in scenarios with little geometric relief, such as a flat parking lot.
Generally, it is possible to characterize the capability of a particular sensor software processes to yield a data product of interest at a specific level of performance as a function of measurable scenario properties.
Often the data provided by more than one sensor is combined in a data fusion framework implemented by one or more software processes, with an aim of improving the overall performance of computing a data product or data products. For example, data from a video camera can be combined with data from a LIDAR sensor to enable detection of pedestrians, at a level of performance that is designed to exceed the level of performance achievable through the use of either a video camera or LIDAR sensor alone. In data fusion scenarios such as this, the above remains true: it is generally possible to characterize the capability of a particular data fusion framework to yield a data product of interest at a specific level of performance.
Software Processes for Motion Planning
Vehicles capable of highly automated driving (e.g., autonomous vehicles) rely on a motion planning process, i.e., an algorithmic process to automatically generate and execute a trajectory through the environment toward a designated short-term goal. We use the term trajectory broadly to include, for example, a path from one place to another. To distinguish the trajectory that is generated by the motion planning process from the route that is generated by a route planning process, we note that trajectories are paths through the vehicle's immediate surroundings (e.g. with distance scales typically on the order of several meters to several hundred meters) that are specifically designed to be free of collisions with obstacles and often have desirable characteristics related to path length, ride quality, required travel time, lack of violation of rules of the road, adherence to driving practices, or other factors.
Some motion planning processes employed on autonomous vehicles exhibit known limitations. For example, a certain motion planning process may be able to compute paths for the vehicle from its current position to a goal under the assumption that the vehicle moves only in the forward direction, but not in reverse. Or, a certain motion planning process may be able to compute paths for a vehicle only when the vehicle is traveling at a speed that is less than a specified speed limit.
It is generally possible to identify these and similar performance characteristics (e.g., limitations) on a motion planning process, based on knowledge of the process's algorithmic design or its observed performance in simulation or experimental testing. Depending on the limitations of a particular motion planning process, it may prove difficult or impossible to navigate safely in specific regions, e.g., highways that require travel at high speeds, or multi-level parking structures that require complex multi-point turns involving both forward and reverse maneuvering.
Software Processes for Decision Making
Vehicles capable of highly automated driving rely on a decision making process, i.e., an algorithmic process, to automatically decide an appropriate short-term course of action for a vehicle at a given time, e.g., whether to pass a stopped vehicle or wait behind it; whether to proceed through a four-way stop intersection or yield to a vehicle that had previously arrived at the intersection.
Some decision making processes employed on autonomous vehicles exhibit known limitations. For example, a certain decision making process may not be able to determine an appropriate course of action for a vehicle in certain scenarios of high complexity, e.g., in roundabouts that include traffic lights, or in multi-level parking structures.
As in the case of motion planning processes, it is generally possible to identify these and similar performance characteristics (e.g., limitations) on a decision making process, based on knowledge of the process's algorithmic design or its observed performance in simulation or experimental testing. Depending on the limitations of a particular decision making process, it may prove difficult or impossible to navigate safely in specific regions.
Software Processes for Vehicle Motion Control
Autonomous vehicles generally aim to follow the trajectory provided by a motion planning process with a high degree of precision by employing a motion control process. Motion control processes compute a set of control inputs (i.e., steering, brake, and throttle inputs) based on analysis of the current and predicted deviation from a desired trajectory and other factors.
Such motion control processes exhibit known limitations. For example, a certain motion control process may allow for stable operation only in the forward direction, but not in reverse. Or, a certain motion control process may possess the capability to track (to a specified precision) a desired trajectory only when the vehicle is traveling at a speed that is less than a specified speed limit. Or, a certain motion control process may possess the capability to execute steering or braking inputs requiring a certain level of lateral or longitudinal acceleration only when the road surface friction coefficient exceeds a certain specified level.
As in the case of motion planning and decision making processes, it is generally possible to identify these and similar limitations on a motion control process, based on knowledge of the processes' algorithmic design, or its observed performance in simulation or experimental testing. Depending on the limitations of a particular motion control process, it may prove difficult or impossible to navigate safely in specific regions.
Safe or robust operation of the autonomous vehicle can be determined based on specific levels of performance of sensors and software processes as functions of current and future conditions.
The route planning process aims to exclude candidate routes that include road features that can be determined to be not safely navigable by an autonomous vehicle. For this purpose the route planning process can usefully consider sources of information that are specifically relevant to autonomous vehicles, including information about characteristics of road features such as spatial characteristics, orientation, surface characteristics, and others. Generally, such information would be used to avoid routing the autonomous vehicle through areas of the road network that would be difficult or impossible for the vehicle to navigate at a required level of performance or safety. Examples of sources of information, and an explanation of their effects on autonomous vehicle performance or safety, are described here.
Spatial Characteristics of Intersections, Roundabouts, Junctions, or Other Road Features
As illustrated by the example shown in
Analysis of such spatial characteristics, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, may allow a determination that certain road segments cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness without regard to or in light of a certain time or times of day or range of times (e.g., after sunset and before sunrise). This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) certain intersections that are, for example, “too large to see across after sunset,” given practical limitations on the autonomous vehicle's sensing capabilities and the allowable travel speed of the roadway. These limitations may make it impossible for the autonomous vehicle sensors to provide data products to the motion planning process with sufficient time to react to oncoming traffic.
Connectivity Characteristics of Intersections, Roundabouts, Junctions, or Other Road Features
As illustrated by the example shown in
Analysis of such connectivity characteristics, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, the capabilities of the motion planning process, and the capabilities of the decision-making process, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid, for example, intersections with geometric properties that make it impossible for the autonomous vehicle sensors to provide data products to the motion planning process with sufficient time to react to oncoming traffic. It may also allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid, intersections that are too complex to safely navigate (e.g., due to complex required merging, or inability to reason about travel in specialized travel lanes), given known limitations on the vehicle's decision-making capability.
Spatial Orientations of Road Features
As illustrated by the examples shown in
Analysis of orientation of road features, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) being “sun blinded” (i.e., experiencing severely degraded performance of video and/or LIDAR sensors due to exposure to direct sunlight at a low oblique incidence angle).
Locations of Roadworks and Traffic Accidents
Road network information may contain, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or another input, information regarding the location of roadworks or accidents, potentially resulting in closure of certain road segments. Analysis of such information, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle due to the vehicle's inability to detect ad hoc signage, barriers, or hand signals presented by human traffic guides associated with the roadworks or accident.
Locations of Rough Road Features
Road network information may contain, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or similar inputs, information regarding the locations of regions of rough, degraded, potholed, damaged, washboarded, or partially constructed roads, including unprepared roads and secondary roads, and roads deliberately constructed with speed bumps or rumble strips. This information may be in the form of a binary designation (e.g., “ROUGH ROAD” or “SMOOTH ROAD”) or in the form of a continuous numerical or semantic metric that quantifies road surface roughness.
Analysis of road surface roughness, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) severely washboarded roads that incite vibration in the physical sensor mounts, leading to poor sensor system performance, or road regions with speed bumps that might be accidentally classified as impassable obstacles by a perception process.
Locations of Road Features Having Poor Visibility Due to Curvature and Slope
As shown in
Analysis of curvature and slope of road features, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid road segments that are steeply pitched and therefore make it impossible for the vehicle sensor system to “see over the hill,” (i.e., detect the presence of traffic in the surrounding environment due to the limited vertical field of view of the sensors), and to “see around the corner,” (i.e., detect the presence of traffic in the surrounding environment due to the limited horizontal field of view of the sensors).
Locations of Road Features having Illegible, Eroded, Incomprehensible, Poorly Maintained or Positioned Markings, Signage, or Signals
Road network information may contain, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or another input, information regarding the locations of road regions with illegible, eroded, incomprehensible, or poorly maintained or positioned lane markings and other road markings, signage, or signals
Analysis of such information, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system and (potentially) the capabilities of the motion planning or decision-making process, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) poorly marked road regions to take account of the vehicle's inability to safely navigate within the lanes, intersections with traffic signs or signals that are partially occluded (e.g. by foliage) or otherwise difficult to detect from a nominal travel lane(s). It may also allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) road regions with signals or signage that are region- or country-specific and cannot be reliably detected by the vehicle perception process(es).
Locations of Road Features having Poor Prior Driving Performance by the Autonomous Vehicle or Another Autonomous Vehicle
Road network information may contain, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or another input, or by the autonomous vehicle of interest or any other vehicle in a fleet of autonomous vehicles, information regarding the locations of road features where the autonomous vehicle of interest, or another autonomous vehicle, has experienced dangerous, degraded, unsafe, or otherwise undesirable driving performance, potentially due to high scenario traffic or pedestrian density, occlusion from static objects, traffic junction complexity, or other factors. Identification of regions of poor vehicle performance can be “tagged” in a map database, and marked for avoidance when the number of tagged incidents exceeds a specified threshold. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid road features where the vehicle or other vehicles have experienced navigation difficulty.
Locations of Road Features having Poor Prior Simulation Performance by a Modeled Autonomous Vehicle
Road network information may contain, or be augmented to include, information regarding the locations of road regions where a model of the autonomous vehicle of interest has been observed in a simulated environment to experience dangerous, degraded, unsafe, or otherwise undesirable driving performance, potentially due to scenario traffic or pedestrian density, occlusion from static objects, traffic junction complexity, or other factors. Identification of regions of poor vehicle performance can be “tagged” in a map database, and marked for avoidance. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid road regions where a model of the vehicle has experienced difficulty in safely navigating in a simulation environment, thereby suggesting that the experimental vehicle may face navigation challenges in the real world environment.
Locations of Road Features that may Present Physical Navigation Challenges in Inclement Weather
Road network information may contain, or allow calculation by a separate process, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or another input, information pertaining to the locations of road features that may present navigation challenges in inclement weather or under specified environmental conditions.
Analysis of such information, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, and knowledge of the performance characteristics of the vehicle's motion control process, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) road segments containing road inclination or curvature that are impossible to safely navigate when covered with ice, snow, or freezing rain.
Locations of Road Features that may Lead to known Vehicle Fault or Failure Conditions
Road network information may contain, or allow calculation by a separate process, or be augmented to include via real time mapping service providers or another input, information pertaining to the locations of road features that may lead to known vehicle fault or failure conditions in various sensors or software processes.
Analysis of such information, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, and knowledge of the performance characteristics of the vehicle's motion control process, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) specific types of metal bridges or overpasses that may induce false readings from RADAR sensors, certain tunnels that may block GPS signals and therefore lead to poor vehicle localization performance, and certain extremely flat roadway regions that may not provide vertical features that are detectable by LIDAR sensors and may therefore lead to poor vehicle localization performance.
Road Segments Containing Road Inclination or Curvature that are Impossible to Safely Navigate when Covered with Ice, Snow, or Freezing Rain.
Road network information may contain, or allow calculation by a separate process, or be augmented to include from real time mapping service providers or another source, information pertaining to the locations of road features that may present navigation challenges in inclement weather or under specified environmental conditions.
Analysis of such information, in light of knowledge of the detection properties of the autonomous vehicle's sensor system, and knowledge of the performance characteristics of the vehicle's motion control process, may allow determination that certain road segments or junctions cannot be navigated by the autonomous vehicle at a specified level of safety or robustness, potentially at a certain time(s) of day or range of times. This may allow the autonomous vehicle to avoid (for example) road segments containing road inclination or curvature that are impossible to safely navigate when covered with ice or freezing rain.
In addition to identifying specific road segments that are not able to be safely navigated by an autonomous vehicle, it is possible to do the opposite: to identify specific road segments that are able to be safely navigated by an autonomous vehicle, based on analysis of relevant information sources as described above. For example, based on analysis of known performance characteristics of vehicle sensors and software processes, and given information about road features, it is possible to determine if a given road segment can be safely and robustly navigated by the autonomous vehicle.
Such analysis would be useful for compiling a map data product or a feed of data to be used by other products or processes, describing “validated autonomous driving routes” of the autonomous vehicle. In some implementations, a data product or data feed could describe “unsafe autonomous driving routes”. This data could be used as one of the properties of road segments that are maintained as part of road network information. In some cases, the validation of road segments and routes (or determination of inability to travel safely or robustly) could be based on successful experimental travel (or simulated travel) by an autonomous vehicle at a level of road features such as streets or at a lane level within a given road feature. A routing algorithm could make use of such information by considering only validated autonomous driving routes when determining an optimal route between the ego vehicle's current position and a goal position. Such an optimal route might attempt to include only road segments that have been deemed “validated autonomous driving routes,” or it might attempt to include a combination of validated and unvalidated driving routes, with the combination determined by an optimization process that considers a variety of factors such as travel distance, expected travel time, and whether or not the road segments are validated or unvalidated, among other factors. In general the route algorithm could explore only candidate routes that are known to have a viability status that exceeds a viability threshold, for example, to allow for sufficiently robust or sufficiently safe travel or both.
In some instances, such information could be used for urban planning purposes, to enable users (i.e., human planners of road networks or automated road network planning software processes) to avoid designing road segments or intersections that are likely to pose navigation challenges to autonomous vehicles. In such a use case, the analysis methods described here would be employed in the context of road design software tools or processes.
Such a road design software tool or process would allow a user to specify or design a road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature using a variety of possible input devices and user interfaces. As the user employs the road design software tool to specify or design a road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature, a software process (i.e., a “viability status process”) would analyze the viability status of a road segment or region of multiple, potentially connected, road segments (e.g., a freeway, or intersection). The viability status process may also analyze the viability status of a route. The viability status is determined based on the analysis methods described above.
The output of the viability status process can be a viability status assessment, i.e., an assessment of the viability of the road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature, or route, expressed in binary designation (e.g., “VIABLE” or “NOT VIABLE”) or can take the form of a continuous numerical or semantic metric that quantifies viability. The viability status assessment may include independent assessments of the safety or robustness of the road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature, or route, each expressed in binary designation or in the form of a continuous numerical or semantic metrics that quantifies safety or robustness. The output of the viability status process may include a warning to the user based on the value of the viability status assessment.
Depending on the value of the viability status assessment, the road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature designed by the user may be automatically deleted. Depending on the value of the viability status assessment, the road segment, road network, intersection, highway, or other road feature may be automatically modified in such a manner as to improve the viability status assessment.
In this manner a road design tool or process may be able to alert a user when the user has designed a hazardous road segments, intersection, or route and thereby deter construction of such road segment, intersection, or route, and potentially also suggest improved designs of the road segment, intersection, or route.
We sometimes use the phrase “viability status” broadly to include, for example, any determination or indication for a route or road feature or segment of a route of the level of suitability for travel by an autonomous vehicle, for example, whether it is unsafe, the degree to which it is unsafe, whether it is safe, the degree to which it is safe, whether it can be traveled robustly or not, and the degree of robustness, whether it is valid or not, and other similar interpretations.
Other implementations are also within the scope of the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4113046 | Arpino | Sep 1978 | A |
5128874 | Bhanu et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5166668 | Aoyagi | Nov 1992 | A |
5521579 | Bernhard | May 1996 | A |
5913917 | Murphy | Jun 1999 | A |
6018806 | Cortopassi et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6026347 | Schuster | Feb 2000 | A |
6067501 | Vieweg | May 2000 | A |
6126327 | Bi et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6151539 | Bergholz et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6188602 | Alexander et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6320515 | Olsson | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6356961 | Oprescu-Surcobe | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6546552 | Peleg | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6768813 | Nakayama | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6782448 | Goodman et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6836657 | Ji et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6947554 | Freyman et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6978198 | Shi | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7007049 | Peng | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7218212 | Hu | May 2007 | B2 |
7260465 | Waldis et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7292870 | Heredia et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7350205 | Ji | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7512516 | Widmann | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7512673 | Miloushev et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7516450 | Ogura | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7562360 | Tai et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7584049 | Nomura | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7587433 | Peleg et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7642931 | Sato | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7657885 | Anderson | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7665081 | Pavlyushchik | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7668871 | Cai et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7681192 | Dietsch et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7734387 | Young et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7802243 | Feeser et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7805720 | Chang et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7853405 | Yamamoto | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7865890 | Sumi et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890427 | Rao et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7904895 | Cassapakis et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7934209 | Zimmer et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7941656 | Hans et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8010959 | Mullis et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8078349 | Prada Gomez et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8095301 | Kawamura | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8112165 | Meyer et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8145376 | Sherony | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8146075 | Mahajan | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8170739 | Lee | May 2012 | B2 |
8229618 | Tolstedt et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8261256 | Adler et al. | Sep 2012 | B1 |
8266612 | Rathi et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8271972 | Braghiroli | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8326486 | Moinzadeh et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8375108 | Aderton et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8392907 | Oshiumi et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8397230 | Ewington et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8428649 | Yan et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8429643 | Venkatachalam et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8437890 | Anderson et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8457827 | Ferguson et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8468243 | Ogawa et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8495618 | Inbaraj et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8516142 | Lee et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8543261 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8549511 | Seki et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8578361 | Cassapakis et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8612153 | Nomura et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8612773 | Nataraj et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8676427 | Ferguson et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8706394 | Trepagnier et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8744648 | Anderson et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8781707 | Kawawa et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8781715 | Breed | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8813061 | Hoffman et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
8880270 | Ferguson et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8880272 | Ferguson et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8996234 | Tamari et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
9008961 | Nemec et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9045118 | Taguchi et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9070305 | Raman et al. | Jun 2015 | B1 |
9081383 | Montemerlo et al. | Jul 2015 | B1 |
9090259 | Dolgov et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9096267 | Mudalige et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9097549 | Rao et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9110196 | Urmson et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9120485 | Dolgov | Sep 2015 | B1 |
9128798 | Hoffman et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9139199 | Harvey | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9176500 | Teller et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9187117 | Spero et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9188982 | Thomson | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9196164 | Urmson et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9202382 | Klinger et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9218739 | Trombley et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9243537 | Ge | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9314924 | Laurent et al. | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9321461 | Silver | Apr 2016 | B1 |
9348577 | Hoffman et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9349284 | Cudak | May 2016 | B2 |
9354075 | Kim | May 2016 | B2 |
9365213 | Stenneth et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9399472 | Minoiu-Enache | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9412280 | Zwillinger et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9465388 | Fairfield et al. | Oct 2016 | B1 |
9493158 | Harvey | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9519290 | Kojo | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9523984 | Herbach | Dec 2016 | B1 |
9534910 | Okumura | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9547307 | Cullinane | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9547986 | Curlander et al. | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9555736 | Solar et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9557736 | Silver | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9566899 | Foltin | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9568915 | Berntorp et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9587952 | Slusar | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9594373 | Solyom | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9600768 | Ferguson | Mar 2017 | B1 |
9625261 | Polansky | Apr 2017 | B2 |
9645577 | Frazzoli et al. | May 2017 | B1 |
9648023 | Hoffman et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9671785 | Bhatia et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9682707 | Silver | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9688199 | Koravadi | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9729636 | Koravadi et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9740945 | Divekar et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9789809 | Foltin | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9881220 | Koravadi | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9881501 | Weber | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9898008 | Xu et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9910440 | Wei et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9921585 | Ichikawa et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
20030043269 | Park | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030060973 | Mathews et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030125864 | Banno et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030125871 | Cherveny et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040054995 | Lee | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040093196 | Hawthorne et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040167702 | Isogai et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050065711 | Dahlgren et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050093720 | Yamane | May 2005 | A1 |
20050134710 | Nomura et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050143889 | Isaji et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050206142 | Prakah-Asante et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050273256 | Takahashi | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283699 | Nomura et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060103590 | Divon | May 2006 | A1 |
20060174240 | Flynn | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060195257 | Nakamura | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060217939 | Nakate et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060242206 | Brezak et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070001831 | Raz et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070055446 | Schiffmann et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061074 | Safoutin | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070061779 | Dowedeit et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070087756 | Hoffberg | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070124029 | Hattori | May 2007 | A1 |
20070142995 | Wotlermann | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162905 | Kooijmans | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070185624 | Duddles et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070225900 | Kropp | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070226726 | Robsahm | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070229310 | Sato | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070253261 | Uchida et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070255764 | Sonnier et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070265767 | Yamamoto | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080001919 | Pascucci | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080005733 | Ramachandran et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080046174 | Johnson | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080071460 | Lu | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080134165 | Anderson et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080140278 | Breed | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080162027 | Murphy et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080184785 | Wee | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080201702 | Bunn | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080244757 | Nakagaki | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080266168 | Aso et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080303696 | Aso et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090024357 | Aso et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090058677 | Tseng et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090062992 | Jacobs et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090070031 | Ginsberg | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090079839 | Fischer et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090089775 | Zusman | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090174573 | Smith | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090177502 | Doinoff et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090237263 | Sawyer | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090271084 | Taguchi | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090312942 | Froeberg | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100100268 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100198513 | Zeng et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100228419 | Lee et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100228427 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100256836 | Mudalige | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100274430 | Dolgov et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100286824 | Solomon | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100317401 | Lee et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110066312 | Sung et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110080302 | Muthaiah et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110102195 | Kushi et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110106442 | Desai et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110137549 | Gupta et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110141242 | Fernandez Alvarez et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110153166 | Yester | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110184605 | Neff | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110190972 | Timmons | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110197187 | Roh | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110231095 | Nakada et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110252415 | Ricci | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110265075 | Lee | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110307879 | Ishida et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120010797 | Luo et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120016581 | Mochizuki et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120017207 | Mahajan et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120109421 | Scarola | May 2012 | A1 |
20120110296 | Harata | May 2012 | A1 |
20120112895 | Jun | May 2012 | A1 |
20120124568 | Fallon et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120124571 | Nagai et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120140039 | Ota | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120179362 | Stille | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120242167 | Zeung et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120266156 | Spivak et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120268262 | Popovic | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120271510 | Seymour et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120275524 | Lien et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120323402 | Murakami | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130018572 | Jang | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130046471 | Rahmes et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130054133 | Lewis et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130055231 | Hyndman et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130079950 | You | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130085817 | Pinkus | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130099911 | Mudalige et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130112132 | Mueller | May 2013 | A1 |
20130151058 | Zagorski et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130167131 | Carson | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174050 | Heinonen et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130184926 | Spero et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130223686 | Shimizu | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227538 | Maruyama | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130238235 | Kitchel | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130245877 | Ferguson et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130253754 | Ferguson et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130261952 | Aso et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130297172 | Ariga et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130304349 | Davidson | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130304365 | Trombley et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130325241 | Lombrozo | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130328916 | Arikan et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130332918 | Aoyagi et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130335569 | Einecke et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130338854 | Yamamoto | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130339721 | Yasuda | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140013015 | Chang | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140018994 | Panzarella et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140059534 | Daum et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140062725 | Maston | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140063232 | Fairfield et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140067488 | James et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140068594 | Young et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140088855 | Ferguson | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140104077 | Engel et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140112538 | Ogawa et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140136414 | Abhyanker | May 2014 | A1 |
20140149153 | Cassandras et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140156182 | Nemec et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140168377 | Cluff et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140176350 | Niehsen et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140195093 | Litkouhi et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140204209 | Huth et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140207325 | Mudalige et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140222280 | Salomonsson | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140245285 | Krenz | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140266665 | Haushalter | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140272894 | Grimes et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140278052 | Slavin et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140278090 | Boes et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140288810 | Donovan et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140303827 | Dolgov et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140309856 | Willson-Quayle | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140309885 | Ricci | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140327532 | Park | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140330479 | Dolgov et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140334168 | Ehlgen et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140334689 | Butler et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140371987 | Van Wiemeersch | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150006012 | Kammek et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150012204 | Breuer et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150032290 | Kitahama et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150046076 | Costrello | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150051785 | Pal et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150081156 | Trepagnier et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150088357 | Yopp | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150094943 | Yoshihama et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150100216 | Rayes | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150120125 | Thomson et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150121071 | Schwarz | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150123816 | Breed | May 2015 | A1 |
20150124096 | Koravadi | May 2015 | A1 |
20150134180 | An et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150149017 | Attard et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150154243 | Danaher | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150154323 | Koch | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150160024 | Fowe | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150161895 | You et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150166069 | Engel et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150178998 | Attard et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150191135 | Noon et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150191136 | Noon et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150210274 | Clarke et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150219463 | Kang | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150253778 | Rothoff et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150266488 | Solyom | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150268665 | Ludwich et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150279210 | Zafiroglu et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150285644 | Pfaff et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150292894 | Goddard et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150293534 | Takamatsu | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150307131 | Froeschl et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310744 | Farrelly et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150319093 | Stolfus | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150329107 | Meyer et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150332101 | Takaki et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150336502 | Hillis et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150338849 | Nemec et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150339928 | Ramanujam | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150345959 | Meuleau | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150345966 | Meuleau | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150345967 | Meuleau | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150345971 | Meuleau et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150346724 | Jones et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150346727 | Ramanujam | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150348112 | Ramanujam | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150353082 | Lee et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150353085 | Lee et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150353094 | Harda et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150355641 | Choi et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150358329 | Noda et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150360692 | Ferguson et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150379468 | Harvey | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160013934 | Smereka et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160016127 | Mentzel et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160016525 | Chauncey et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160025505 | Oh et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160033964 | Sato et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160041820 | Ricci et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160047657 | Caylor et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160047666 | Fuchs | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160075333 | Sujan et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160078758 | Basalamah | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160107655 | Desnoyer et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160109245 | Denaro | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160117923 | Dannenbring | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160121482 | Bostick et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160129907 | Kim et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160137199 | Kuhne et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160137206 | Chandraker et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160138924 | An | May 2016 | A1 |
20160139594 | Okumura et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160139598 | Ichikawa et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160139600 | Delp | May 2016 | A1 |
20160147921 | VanHolme | May 2016 | A1 |
20160148063 | Hong et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160161266 | Crawford et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160161270 | Okumura | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160161271 | Okumura | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160167652 | Slusar | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160176398 | Prokhorov et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160180707 | MacNeille et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160209843 | Meuleau et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160231122 | Beaurepaire | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160231746 | Hazelton et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160239293 | Hoffman et al. | Aug 2016 | A1 |
20160260328 | Mishra et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160266581 | Dolgov et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160280264 | Baek | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160282874 | Kurata et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160288788 | Nagasaka | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160291155 | Nehmadi et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160318437 | Vilakathara | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160318531 | Johnson et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160321551 | Priness et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160332574 | Park et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160334229 | Ross et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160334230 | Ross et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160355192 | James et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160370194 | Colijn et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160370801 | Fairfield et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160379486 | Taylor | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170010613 | Fukumoto | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170016730 | Gawrilow | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170059335 | Levine et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170059339 | Sugawara et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170082453 | Fischer et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170090480 | Ho et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170106871 | You et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170110022 | Gulash | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170113683 | Mudalige et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170122766 | Nemec et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170123430 | Nath et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170139701 | Lin et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170153639 | Stein | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170154225 | Stein | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170219371 | Suzuki et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170242436 | Creusot | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170245151 | Hoffman et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170248949 | Moran et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170249848 | Niino et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170276502 | Fischer et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170277193 | Frazzoli et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170277194 | Frazzoli et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170277195 | Frazzoli et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170286784 | Bhatia et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170291608 | Engel et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170292843 | Wei et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170305335 | Wei et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170309179 | Kodama | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170327128 | Denaro | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170336788 | Iagnemma | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170337819 | Wei et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170341652 | Sugawara et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170345321 | Cross et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170349181 | Wei et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170351263 | Lambermont et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170356746 | Iagnemma | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170356748 | Iagnemma | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170356750 | Iagnemma | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170356751 | Iagnemma | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170369051 | Sakai et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180004206 | Iagnemma | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180004210 | Iagnemma et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180039269 | Lambermount et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180050664 | Tarte | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180053276 | Iagnemma et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180053412 | Iagnemma et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180086280 | Nguyen | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180113455 | Iagnemma et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180113456 | Iagnemma et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180113457 | Iagnemma et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180113459 | Bennie et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180113463 | Iagnemma et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180113470 | Iagnemma et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180114442 | Minemura et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180120845 | Lambermont et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180120859 | Eagelberg et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
105652300 | Jun 2016 | CN |
102013010983 | Jan 2015 | DE |
0436213 | Jul 1991 | EP |
2381361 | Oct 2011 | EP |
2639781 | Sep 2013 | EP |
2955077 | Dec 2015 | EP |
2982562 | Feb 2016 | EP |
2005-189983 | Jul 2005 | JP |
2009-102003 | May 2009 | JP |
2009-251759 | Oct 2009 | JP |
2010-086269 | Apr 2010 | JP |
2011-253379 | Dec 2011 | JP |
2013-242737 | Dec 2013 | JP |
2015-044432 | Mar 2015 | JP |
2016095627 | May 2016 | JP |
2018-012478 | Jan 2018 | JP |
10-2013-0085235 | Jul 2013 | KR |
10-2014-0069749 | Jun 2014 | KR |
10-2014-0130968 | Nov 2014 | KR |
10-1480652 | Jan 2015 | KR |
10-1590787 | Feb 2016 | KR |
20160049017 | May 2016 | KR |
WO2007053350 | May 2007 | WO |
WO2014139821 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO2015008032 | Jan 2015 | WO |
WO2015151055 | Oct 2015 | WO |
WO2016018636 | Feb 2016 | WO |
WO2017205278 | Nov 2017 | WO |
WO2017218563 | Dec 2017 | WO |
WO2018005819 | Jan 2018 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Kessels et al., “Electronic Horizon: Energy Management using Telematics Information”, Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, 2007. VPPC 2007. IEEE, 6 pages. |
Hammerschmidt, “Bosch to Focus on Cloud for Connected Car Services”, EE Times Europe. Dec. 3, 2015, 4 pages. |
“Gain Scheduling”, Wikipedia, 1 page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_scheduling. |
http://www.bosch-presse.de/pressportal/en/connected-horizon--seeing-beyong-the-bends-ahead-35691.html. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT application PCT/US2017/037294 dated Oct. 17, 2017 (22 pages). |
Dolgov, Dmitri et al., “Path Planning for Autonomous Vehicles in Unknown Semi-structured Environments”, International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29 Issue 5, pp. 485-501, Apr. 2010 (18 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion from PCT application PCT/US2017/040040 dated Sep. 15, 2017 (22 pages). |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,281, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,050, filed Jul. 1, 2016. |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,313, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,400, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,365, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
Transaction history and application as filed of U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,035, filed Jul. 1, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,281, filed Jun. 14, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,050, filed Jul. 1, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,313, filed Jun. 14, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,400, filed Jun. 14, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,365, filed Jun. 14, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,035, filed Jul. 1, 2016—Pending. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,833, filed Apr. 3, 2017, Ravichandran et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,780, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,802, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,819, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,838, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,839, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,857, filed Jun. 16, 2017, Liu et al. |
Aguiar et al., “Path-following for non-minimum phase systems removes performance limitations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2005, 50(2):234-239. |
Aguiar et al., “Trajectory-tracking and path-following of under-actuated autonomous vehicles with parametric modeling uncertainty,” Transactions on Automatic Control, 2007, 52(8):1362-1379. |
Amidi and Thorpe, “Integrated mobile robot control,” International Society for Optics and Photonics, Boston, MA, 1991, 504-523. |
Aoude et al., “Mobile agent trajectory prediction using Bayesian nonparametric reachability trees,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2011, 1587-1593. |
Autoliv.com [online], “Vision Systems—another set of “eyes”,” available on or before Sep. 8, 2012, retrieved Oct. 20, 2016,<https://www.autoliv.com/ProductsAndInnovations/ActiveSafetySystems/Pages/VisionSystems.aspx>, 2 pages. |
Autonomoustuff.com [online], “ibeo Standard Four Layer Multi-Echo LUX Sensor: Bringing together the World's Best Technologies,” available on or before Jul. 2016, retrieved on Feb. 7, 2017, <http://www.autonomoustuff.com/product/ibeo-lux-standard/>, 2 pages. |
Bahlmann et al., “A system for traffic sign detection, tracking, and recognition using color, shape, and motion information.” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2005, 255-260. |
Balabhadruni, “Intelligent traffic with connected vehicles: intelligent and connected traffic systems,” IEEE International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Signals, Communication, and Optimization, 2015, 2 pages (Abstract Only). |
Bertozzi et al., “Stereo inverse perspective mapping: theory and applications” Image and Vision Computing, 1999, 16:585-590. |
Betts, “A survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization,” AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Mar.-Apr. 1998, 21(2):193-207. |
Castro et al., “Incremental Sampling-based Algorithm for Minimum-violation Motion Planning”, Decision and Control, IEEE 52nd Annual Conference, Dec. 2013, 3217-3224. |
Chaudari et al., “Incremental Minimum-Violation Control Synthesis for Robots Interacting with External Agents,” American Control Conference, Jun. 2014, <http://vision.ucla.edu/˜pratikac/pub/chaudhari.wongpiromsarn.ea.acc14.pdf>, 1761-1768. |
Chen et al., “Likelihood-Field-Model-Based Dynamic Vehicle Detection and Tracking for Self-Driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Nov. 2016, 17(11):3142-3158. |
d'Andrea-Novel et al., “Control of Nonholonomic Wheeled Mobile Robots by State Feedback Linearization,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, Dec. 1995, 14(6):543-559. |
de la Escalera et al., “Road traffic sign detection and classification,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Dec. 1997, 44(6):848-859. |
Delphi.com [online], “Delphi Electronically Scanning Radar: Safety Electronics,” retrieved on Feb. 7, 2017, <http://delphi.com/manufacturers/auto/safety/active/electronically-scanning-radar>, 4 pages. |
Demiris, “Prediction of intent in robotics and multi-agent systems.” Cognitive Processing, 2007, 8(3):151-158. |
Dominguez et al., “An optimization technique for positioning multiple maps for self-driving car's autonomous navigation,” IEEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2015, 2694-2699. |
Fairfield and Urmson, “Traffic light mapping and detection,” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011, 6 pages. |
Falcone et al., “A linear time varying model predictive control approach to the integrated vehicle dynamics control problem in autonomous systems,” IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2007, 2980-2985. |
Falcone et al., “A Model Predictive Control Approach for Combined Braking and Steering in Autonomous Vehicles”, Ford Research Laboratories, Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation, 2007, <http;//www.me.berkeley.edu/˜frborrel/pdfpub/pub-20.pdf>, 6 pages. |
Fong et al., “Advanced Interfaces for Vehicle Teleoperation: Collaborative Control Sensor Fusion Displays, and Remote Driving Tools”, Autonomous Robots 11, 2001, 77-85. |
Franke et al., “Autonomous driving goes downtown,” IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, 1998, 6:40-48. |
Fraser, “Differential Synchronization,” ACM: DocEng '09, Sep. 2009, <https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/35605.pdf>, 13-20. |
Garcia et al., “Model predictive control: theory and practice—a survey,” Automatica, 1989, 25(3):335-348. |
Gavrila and Philomin, “Real-time object detection for “smart” vehicles,” In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 1999, 1:87-93. |
Golovinsky et al., “Shape-based Recognition of 3D Point Clouds in Urban Environments,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Vision, 2009, 2154-2161. |
He et al., “Color-Based Road Detection in Urban Traffic Scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Dec. 2004, 5(4):309-318. |
Himmelsback et al., “Fast Segmentation of 3D Point Clouds for Ground Vehicles,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Jul. 21-24, 2010, 6 pages. |
IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Consideration in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems, “Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Wellbeing with Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems,” IEEE Advancing Technology for Humanity, Dec. 13, 2016, 138 pages. |
ISO.org, “ISO 14229-1:2006; Road Vehicles—Unified diagnostic services (UDS)—Part 1: Specification and requirements,” International Standard Organization, 2006, retrieved on Apr. 4, 2018, <https://www.iso.org/standard/45293.html>, 2 pages (abstract). |
ISO.org, “ISO 15765-3:2004; Road Vehicles—Diagnostics on Controller Area Networks (CAN)—Part 3: Implementation of unified diagnostic services (UDS on CAN),” International Standard Organization, Oct. 2004, retrieved on Apr. 4, 2018, <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14229:-1:ed-1:v2:en>, 2 pages (abstract). |
Jiang and Nijmeijer, “Tracking control of mobile robots: a case study in backstepping,” Automatica, 1997, 33(7):1393-1399. |
Kala, et al: “Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles on a Dual Carriageway without Speed Lanes”, Electronics, Jan. 13, 2015 4(1):59-81. |
Kanayama, “A Stable Tracking Control Method for an Autonomous Mobile Robot,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1990, 384-389. |
Karaman and Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning.” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, Jun. 2011, <http://ares.lids.mit.edu/papers/Karaman.Frazzoli.IJRR11.pdf>, 30(7):846-894. |
Karaman et al., “Sampling-based Algorithms for Optimal Motion Planning with Deterministic-Calculus Specifications”, 2012 American Control Conference, Jun. 27-Jun. 29, 2012, 8 pages. |
Kavraki et al., “Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1996, 12(4):566-580. |
Kim, “Robust lane detection and tracking in challenging scenarios.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2008, 9(1):16-26. |
Larson et al., “Securing Vehicles against Cyber Attacks,” ACM, 2008, retrieved on [date], <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1413174>, 3 pages. |
Lindner et al., “Robust recognition of traffic signals,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2004, 5 pages. |
Liu et al, “Nonlinear Stochastic Predictive Control with Unscented Transformation for Semi_Autonomous Vehicles,” American Control Conference, Jun. 4-6, 2014, 5574-5579. |
Liu et al., “Robust semi-autonomous vehicle control for roadway departure and obstacle avoidance,” ICCAS, Oct. 20-23 2013, 794-799. |
Lobdell, “Robust Over-the-air Firmware Updates Using Program Flash Memory Swap on Kinetis Microcontrollers,” Freescal Semiconductor Inc., 2012, retrieved on Apr. 11, 2018, <http://cachefreescale.com/flies/microcontrollers/doc/app_note/AN4533.pdf>, 20 pages. |
Luzcando (searcher), “EIC 3600 Search Report,” STIC—Scientific & Technical Information Center, Feb. 14, 2018, 20 pages. |
Maldonado-Bascón et al., “Road-sign detection and recognition based on support vector machines,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2007, 8(2):264-278. |
Mayne et al., “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica, 2000, 36(6):789-814. |
Mobileye [online], “Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) systems range on the spectrum of passive/active,” Copyright 2017, retrieved on Oct. 20, 2016, <http://www.mobileye.com/our-technology/adas/>, 2 pages. |
Mogelmose et al., “Vision-based traffic sign detection and analysis for intelligent driver assistance systems: Perspectives and survey,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2012, 13(4):1484-1497. |
Morris et al., “Learning, modeling, and classification of vehicle track patterns from live video.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2008, 9(3):425-437. |
Nilsson et al., “Conducting Forensic Investigations of Cyber Attacks on Automobiles In-Vehicle Networks,” ICST, 2008, retrieved on Mar. 20, 2016, <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1363228>, 6 pages. |
Nilsson et al., “A Framework for Self-Verification of Firmware Updates over the Air in Vehicle ECUs,” IEEE: GLOBECOM Workshops, Nov. 2008, 5 pages. |
Ollero and Amidi, “Predictive path tracking of mobile robots. application to the CMU Navlab,” in 5th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 1991, 91:1081-1086. |
Paik et al., “Profiling-based Log Block Replacement Scheme in FTL for Update-intensive Executions,” IEEE: Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC), Oct. 2011, 182-188. |
Premebida et al., “A lidar and vision-based approach for pedestrian and vehicle detection and tracking.” In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, 2007, 1044-1049. |
Premebida et al., “LIDAR and vision-based pedestrian detection system.” Journal of Field Robotics, 2009, 26(9):696-711. |
Ponomarev, “Augmented reality's future isn't glasses. It's the car,” Venturebeat.com, available on or before, Aug. 2017, retrieved on Mar. 30, 2018, <https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/23/ar-will-drive-the-evolution-of-automated-cars/>, 4 pages. |
Rankin et al., “Autonomous path planning navigation system used for site characterization,” SPIE—International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1996, 176-186. |
Shavel-Shwartz et al., “Avoiding a “Winter of Autonomous Driving”: On a Formal Model of Safe, Scalable, Self-driving Cars,” arXiv preprint, Aug. 17, 2017, 25 pages. |
Shen et al., “A Robust Video based Traffic Light Detection Algorithm for Intelligent Vehicles,” Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2009, 521-526. |
Shin, “Hot/Cold Clustering for Page Mapping in NAND Flash Memory,” IEEE: Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Nov. 2011, 57(4):1728-1731. |
Spieser et al, “Toward a systematic approach to the design and evaluation of automated mobility-on-demand systems: A case study in Singapore,” Road Vehicle Automation, 2014, 229-245. |
Standards.sae.org, “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles,” SAE International, Sep. 2016, retrieved on Apr. 18, 2017, <http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/>, 3 pages. |
Strahn et al., “Laser Scanner-Based Navigation for Commercial Vehicles,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Jun. 13-15, 2007, 969-974. |
Steger et al, “Applicability of IEEE 802.11s for Automotive Wireless Software Updates,” IEEE: Telecommunications (ConTEL), Jul. 2015, 8 pages. |
Stokar, “Perform over-the-air updates for car ECUss,” eMedia Asia Ltd., 2013, retrieved on Apr. 11, 2018, <http://www.eetasia.com/STATIC/PDF/201312/EEOL_2013DEC05_NET_EMS_TA_01.pdf?SOURCES=DOWNLOAD>, 3 pages. |
Tabuada and Pappas, “Linear time logic control of discrete-time linear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2006, 51(12):1862-1877. |
Wallace et al., “First results in robot road-following,” in IJCAI, 1985, 1089-1095. |
Wang et al., “Lane detection and tracking using B-Snake,” Image and Vision Computing, 2004, 22(4):269-280. |
Wang et al., “Simultaneous localization, mapping and moving object tracking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2007, 26(9):889-916. |
Weiskircher et al., “Predictive Guidance and Control Framework for (Semi-) Autonomous Vehicles in Public Traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2017, 25(6):2034-2046. |
Weiss et al., “Autonomous v. Tele-operated: How People Perceive Human-Robot Collaboration with HRP-2,” Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction, 2009, 3 pages. |
Wit et al., “Autonomous ground vehicle path tracking,” Journal of Robotic Systems, 2004, 21(8):439-449. |
Wu et al., “Data Sorting in Flash Memory,” ACM, 2015, <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2747982.2665067>, 25 pages. |
Yilmaz et al., “Object tracking: A survey,” Computing Surveys, 2006, 31 pages. |
Zax, “A Software Update for Your Car? Ford reboots it infotainment system, following consumer complaints,” MIT Technology Review, 2012, retrieved on Apr. 11, 2018, <http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427153/a-software-update-for-yourcar?/>, 6 pages. |
Zheng et al, “Lane-level positioning system based on RFID and vision,” IET International Conference on Intelligent and Connected Vehicles, 2016, 5 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/872,554, Censi et al., filed Jan. 16, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/478,991, Frazzoli et al., filed Apr. 4, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/605,335, Frazzoli et al., filed May 25, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/605,388, Frazzoi et al., filed May 25, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/161,996, Iagnemma, filed May 23, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,281, Iagnemma, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,050, Iagnemma et al., filed Jul. 1, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,313, Iagnemma, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,400, Iagnemma, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/182,365, Iagnemma, filed Jun. 14, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/200,035, Iagnemma et al., filed Jul. 1, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/240,072, Iagnemma et al., filed Aug. 18, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/240,150, Iagnemma et al., filed Aug. 18, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,345, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/298,935, Iagnemma et al., filed Oct. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/298,984. Iagnemma et al., filed Oct. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/298,936, Iagnemma et al., filed Oct. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/298,970, Iagnemma et al, filed Oct. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/299,028, Iagnemma et al, filed Oct. 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/401,473, Iagnemma et al., filed Jan. 9, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/401,499, Iagnemma et al., filed Jan. 9, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/401,519, Iagnemma et al., filed Jan. 9, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/451,703, Frazzoli et al., filed Mar. 7, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/490,694, Qin et al., filed Apr. 18, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,780, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,833, Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/451,734, Frazzoli et al, filed Mar. 7, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/451,747, Frazzoli et al, filed Mar. 7, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,872, Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,882, Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,936 , Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,930, Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/477,970, Ravichandran et al., filed Apr. 3, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/490,599, Qin et al., filed Apr. 18, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/490,616, Qin et al., filed Apr. 18, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/490,682, Qin et al., filed Apr. 18, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,802, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,819, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,838, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,839, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/624,857, Liu et al., filed Jun. 16, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/879,015, Yershov et al., filed Jan. 24, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,470, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,500, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,503, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,548, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/688,540, Frazzoli et al., filed Aug. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/872,627, Censi et al., filed Jan. 16, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/872,603, Censi et al., filed Jan. 16, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/872,614, Censi et al., filed Jan. 16, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/138,602, Hoffman et al., filed Apr. 26, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/590,610, Hoffman et al., filed May 9, 2017 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/350,275, Hoffman et al., filed Nov. 14, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/083,520, Bhatia et al., filed Mar. 29, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/093,021, Wei et al., filed Apr. 7, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/146,534, Wei et al., filed May 4, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/824,037, Wei et al., filed Nov. 28, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/135,861, Lee et al., filed Apr. 22, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/135/825, Wei et al., filed Apr. 22, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/171,129, Lambermont et al., filed Jun. 2, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/159,234, Wei et al., filed May 16, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/160,655 , Wei et al., filed May 20, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/171,148, Bhatia et al., filed Jun. 2, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/171,174, Wei et al., filed Jun. 2, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/177,955, Wei et al., filed Jun. 6, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/187,157, Wei et al., filed Jun. 20, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/336,942, Lambermount et al., filed Oct. 28, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/230,019, Lambermount et al., filed Aug. 5, 2016. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/198,598, Wei et al., filed Jun. 30, 2016 (abandoned). |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/619,939, Wei et al., filed Jun. 12, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/591,680, Wei et al., filed May 10, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/653,879, Xu et al., filed Jul. 19, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/906,059, Pai et al., filed Feb. 27, 2018. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/967,862, Wei et al., filed May 1, 2018. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170356747 A1 | Dec 2017 | US |