Patent Issued for Autonomous vehicle authorized use determination (USPTO 11370391): State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
2022 JUL 20 (NewsRx) -- By a
The patent’s inventors are
This patent was filed on
From the background information supplied by the inventors, news correspondents obtained the following quote: “Conventional vehicles are typically operated by a human vehicle operator who controls both steering and motive controls. Operator error, inattention, inexperience, misuse, and/or distraction may lead to numerous vehicle collisions each year, resulting in injury and damage.
“More recently, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles augment vehicle operators’ information or replace vehicle operators’ control commands to operate the vehicle, in whole or part, with computer systems based upon information from sensors within, or attached to, the vehicle. Such vehicles may be operated with or without passengers, thus requiring different means of control than traditional vehicles. Newer vehicles may also include a plurality of advanced sensors, capable of providing significantly more data (both in type and quantity) than is available even from GPS navigation assistance systems installed in traditional vehicles.
“Ensuring safe operation of such autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles is of the utmost importance because the automated systems of these vehicles may not function properly in all environments. Although autonomous operation may be safer than manual operation under ordinary driving conditions, unusual or irregular environmental conditions may significantly impair the functioning of the autonomous operation features controlling the autonomous vehicle. Under some conditions, autonomous operation may become impractical or excessively dangerous. As an example, fog or heavy rain may greatly reduce the ability of autonomous operation features to safely control the vehicle. Additionally, damage or other impairment of sensors or other components of autonomous systems may significantly increase the risks associated with autonomous operation. Such conditions may change frequently, thereby changing the safety of autonomous vehicle operation.
“In some scenarios, an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may switch from an autonomous mode to a manual mode, such as when there is a software or hardware malfunction and the vehicle is unable to perform autonomously. In these scenarios it is important that a human operator is ready and available to take control of the vehicle. Thus, it may be desirable to have a mechanism to keep human operators engaged during autonomous operation of the vehicle so that they are prepared if they have to take over.
“Additionally, when a manually operated vehicle encounters law enforcement or another governmental entity (e.g., during a car crash, when the vehicle is pulled over, etc.), a human operator provides registration information and/or other vehicle information to law enforcement or the other governmental entity. However, this information may be more difficult to obtain from an autonomous vehicle, particularly if there is not a human operator within the vehicle.
“Furthermore, manually operated vehicles and/or drones may deliver loads, such as packages, from shipping locations to recipient locations. In some scenarios, manually operated vehicles deliver several loads in the same trip when each load is going to the same location or geographic area. The manually operated vehicles may travel from one centrally located transportation hub to another transportation hub. Then additional vehicles may obtain the loads from the centrally located transportation hub and drop them off at the recipient locations. However, there may be inefficiencies when a load is scheduled for delivery just after a shipping vehicle has left the shipping location and began its daily route, or when a recipient location for a load is more than a threshold distance from each of the transportation hubs. Additionally, in the scenarios where an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle delivers a load, the autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may not be able to deliver the load directly to a recipient’s doorstep. Accordingly, this process may require at least some manual operation.
“Moreover, in some scenarios, an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may malfunction or behave erratically. While the vehicles may have controls for a human to take over operation of the vehicle from within, there is no mechanism to take control of the vehicle when there are no passengers within the vehicle or the passengers are unable to operate a vehicle (e.g., the passengers are under the legal driving age, do not have a driver’s license, are inebriated or incapacitated for any other reason, etc.).
“Still further, an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may pick up multiple passengers at various pickup locations and transport them to respective destination locations. In some scenarios, an unauthorized passenger may enter the vehicle or an authorized passenger may perform certain acts which may cause their authorization to be within the vehicle to be revoked (e.g., by damaging property within the vehicle, fighting with other passengers, lighting a fire within the vehicle, etc.). It may be desirable to have a mechanism to remove such passengers from the vehicle.
“Also, in some scenarios, a person with a disability may request transportation via an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle. In the case of a manually operated vehicle, a human operator or other passenger may help the person into and out of the vehicle. However, an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle may not have any other human operators or passengers to help the person with the disability into the vehicle, direct the person into her seat, and/or help her out of the vehicle. Existing techniques and solutions may have additional or alternative drawbacks as well.”
Supplementing the background information on this patent, NewsRx reporters also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent: “The present embodiments may be related to, inter alia, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle operation, including driverless operation of fully autonomous vehicles. The embodiments described herein relate particularly to various aspects of communication between autonomous operation features, components, and software. Specific systems and methods are summarized below. The methods and systems summarized below may include additional, less, or alternate actions, including those discussed elsewhere herein.
“In one aspect, a computer-implemented method for disabling a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features may be provided. The method may include: (1) receiving, at one or more processors (and/or associated transceivers) in a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features, a communication from a remote entity; (2) analyzing, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, the communication to determine that the communication comprises instructions to disable the vehicle; (3) authenticating, at the one or more processors of the vehicle, the instructions by determining that the remote entity is authorized to disable the vehicle; and/or (4) causing, by the one or more processors of the vehicle, the vehicle to become disabled based upon the communication and the authentication. The method may include additional, less, or alternate actions and functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein.
“For instance, the remote entity may include an infrastructure component having one or more processors; the one or more processors of the infrastructure component may determine that the vehicle is going to collide with the infrastructure component; and/or the communication may further include time and distance stopping information required to stop the vehicle before the vehicle collides with the infrastructure component. Additionally or alternatively, the remote entity may be a law enforcement agency; and/or the communication may further include information indicating that the vehicle has not complied with a government regulation. Additionally or alternatively, the remote entity may be an automobile manufacturer or an automobile parts manufacturer; and/or the communication may further include information indicating that an automobile part of the vehicle makes the vehicle dangerous to operate.
“In some embodiments, the remote entity may be the automobile manufacturer or the automobile parts manufacturer; and/or the method may further include: with one or more processors (and/or associated transceivers) of the remote entity: (i) determining that the vehicle has been modified to include a faulty component, and (ii) communicating the determination to an insurance agency to allow the insurance agency to modify or cancel an insurance policy of the vehicle.
“In some embodiments, prior to the receiving the communication: one or more processors of the remote entity determine that the vehicle should be disabled because the vehicle is malfunctioning, or driving erratically. Additionally or alternatively, the causing of the vehicle to become disabled may include: ceasing to supply power to a component of an engine of the vehicle; and/or applying brakes of the vehicle. Additionally or alternatively, the causing of the vehicle to become disabled may further include: preventing the vehicle from operating in a manual mode; and/or locking at least one door of the vehicle from an inside of the vehicle and an outside of the vehicle.”
The claims supplied by the inventors are:
“1. A computer-implemented method for transmitting an alert or adjusting control of a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features in response to identifying an unauthorized individual in the vehicle or initiating entry to the vehicle, comprising: receiving, by at least one processor of a vehicle, a signal from at least one sensor or transmitter associated with the vehicle; identifying, by the at least one processor, an individual in the vehicle or initiating entry to the vehicle based upon the signal received from the at least one sensor or transmitter associated with the vehicle; determining, by the at least one processor, that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle; and adjusting, by the at least one processor, control of the vehicle based upon the determination that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle by opening a door of the vehicle and applying brakes of the vehicle.
“2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the identifying of the individual comprises creating, by the one or more processors, a profile of the individual by using a facial recognition technique; and the determining that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle comprises: (i) receiving, by the one or more processors, a profile of a person authorized to be in the vehicle; and (ii) comparing, by the one or more processors, the profile of the person authorized to be in the vehicle with the profile of the individual to determine that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle.
“3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle comprises determining that the individual is: lighting a fire; smoking; committing an illegal activity; vandalizing the vehicle; inebriated; or harming another person in the vehicle.
“4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein adjusting control of vehicle comprises disabling the vehicle by ceasing to supply power to at least one component of an engine of the vehicle.
“5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising sending an alert to a law enforcement agency.
“6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising sending, by the one or more processors, to a law enforcement agency, a video stream depicting an interior of the vehicle.
“7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to a mobile device of the individual, an alert informing the individual that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle.
“8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising activating an auditory alarm system of the vehicle to inform passengers of the vehicle to exit the vehicle because of a dangerous situation.
“9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising audibly broadcasting an instruction for the individual to exit the vehicle; and wherein the audibly broadcasted instruction includes a name of the individual and is above a predetermined decibel level.
“10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle comprises receiving a short-range wireless communication from a mobile device of the individual.
“11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle comprises receiving biometric data of the individual.
“12. A computer system configured to transmit an alert or adjust control of a vehicle having one or more autonomous operation features in response to identifying an unauthorized individual in the vehicle or initiating entry to the vehicle, the computer system comprising one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors configured to: receive a signal from at least one sensor or transmitter associated with a vehicle; identify an individual in the vehicle or initiating entry to the vehicle based upon the signal received from the at least one sensor or transmitter associated with the vehicle; determine that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle; and adjust control of the vehicle based upon the determination that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle by opening a door of the vehicle and applying brakes of the vehicle.
“13. The computer system of claim 12, wherein the determination that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle comprises determining that the individual is: lighting a fire; smoking; committing an illegal activity; vandalizing the vehicle; inebriated; or harming another person in the vehicle.
“14. The computer system of claim 12, wherein adjusting the control of the vehicle comprises disabling the vehicle by ceasing to supply power to at least one component of an engine of the vehicle.
“15. The computer system of claim 12, wherein the one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors are further configured to send an alert to a law enforcement agency.
“16. The computer system of claim 12, wherein the one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors are further configured to send, to a law enforcement agency, a video stream depicting an interior of the vehicle.
“17. The computer system of claim 12, wherein the one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors are further configured to send, to a mobile device of the individual, an alert informing the individual that the individual is not authorized to be in the vehicle.
“18. The computer system of claim 12, wherein the one or more local or remote processors, transceivers, and/or sensors are further configured to activate an auditory alarm system of the vehicle to inform passengers of the vehicle to exit the vehicle because of a dangerous situation.”
For the URL and additional information on this patent, see:
(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)
“Blockchain Insurance Verification System” in Patent Application Approval Process (USPTO 20220207615): Patent Application
AM Best Removes From Under Review With Negative Implications and Affirms Credit Ratings of R&Q Insurance Holdings Ltd. and Rated Subsidiaries
Advisor News
- Economy ‘in a sweet spot’ but some concerns ahead
- Trump, Capitol allies likely looking at quick cryptocurrency legislation
- SEC panel reviews mandatory arbitration clause in investment advisory agreements
- Financial shocks, caregiving, inflation and technology are top retirement concerns
- Proposal to raise Social Security age under fire
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
- Investigators at Brown University Describe Findings in Managed Care (A Health System Assessment Approach To Analysis of Political Parties’ Health Proposals, Portugal): Managed Care
- Researcher’s Work from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Focuses on Blood Cancer (Impact of Fee-for-Service Versus Managed Care Medicare Insurance on the Quality of End-of-Life Care Among Older Adults with Blood Cancers): Oncology – Blood Cancer
- Five of the most frustrating health insurer tactics and why they exist
- Accused CEO killer Luigi Mangione, now in New York, facing federal death-penalty eligible charges
- Accused CEO killer Luigi Mangione, now in New York, facing federal death-penalty eligible charges
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News