DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 5, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the amendments to the claims correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns. The Examiner respectfully notes that removing the word “leading” from the terms “another leading vehicle” and the “other leading vehicle” does not resolve the ambiguity between the two claimed terms. That is, it remains unclear whether “another vehicle” and the “other vehicle” refer to the same vehicle, or different vehicles.
Regarding claims 2-4, the Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument that the amendments to independent claim 1 correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns. Specifically, amending independent claim 1 to remove features directed towards “based on map information or an image obtained by the sensor,” resolves the previously-raised antecedent basis issues.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2-4 has been withdrawn, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 5 is maintained. The Examiner notes that claims 2-4 remain rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to inheriting the above-described deficiencies of independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 5-8, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument that Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Samukawa fail to teach or suggest the amended limitations “when the congestion is relieved, switch a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decrease a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle, and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continue automated driving control applied to the vehicle.”
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 and their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road… and determine whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor… and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle…” Here, the claim recites “another vehicle” twice, and separately invokes “the other vehicle”. As such it is unclear whether each of the invocations of “another vehicle” are intended to refer to the same another vehicle or different another vehicles, and it is similarly unclear whether “the other vehicle” and “another vehicle” refer to the same vehicles. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the other vehicle”. Further, it is unclear whether both invocations of “a road” intend to refer to the same road or two different roads.
Claims 2-4 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-4 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road… determine whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle… and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road…” Here, the claim recites “another vehicle” twice, and separately invokes “the other vehicle”. As such it is unclear whether each of the invocations of “another vehicle” are intended to refer to the same another vehicle or different another vehicles, and it is similarly unclear whether “the other vehicle” and “another vehicle” refer to the same vehicles. There is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the other vehicle”. Further, it is unclear whether both invocations of “a road” intend to refer to the same road or two different roads.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu et al. (US 2018/0326995 A1), hereinafter Hiramatsu, in view of Kawahara et al. (US 2016/0272199 A1), hereinafter Kawahara, and in further view of Yashiro (US 2020/0307596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu teaches vehicle controller for automated driving control of a vehicle in traffic congestion, comprising:
a processor mounted on the vehicle configured to determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road... within a predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is detectable by a sensor for detecting the situation around the vehicle,
Hiramatsu teaches ([0035]): "The blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of blind spots caused by obstacles in a traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions detected by the traveling condition detector 11 and the circumferential conditions detected by the circumferential condition detector 12... Examples of obstacles causing blind spots include other vehicles, constructions along roads, curves or slopes on roads, rain, and snow." Hiramatsu further teaches ([0032]): “The circumferential condition detector 12 detects the circumferential conditions including the number, position, and speed of traffic participants such as other vehicles or pedestrians around the autonomous vehicle A.” Hiramatsu even further teaches ([0048]): "In step S103, the blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of a blind spot caused by an obstacle on a road within a predetermined distance in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions and the circumferential conditions detected in step S102." Hiramatsu still further teaches ([0055]): "FIG. 4 illustrates an example of operation of the autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to the first embodiment in a case in which the autonomous vehicle A turns to the right at an intersection." Hiramatsu yet further teaches ([0057]): "When the autonomous vehicle A reaches the point P1, the blind spot determination unit 21 detects a vehicle B1 as a traffic participant waiting to turn right in the intersection in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A, and detects a blind spot Q caused by the vehicle B1." FIG. 4, included below, demonstrates that vehicle B1 is located ahead of the vehicle in a travel direction of the vehicle. Paragraph [0028] indicates that the autonomous vehicle operating apparatus is installed in an autonomous vehicle and includes a controller 2; paragraph [0034] further indicates that controller 2 includes the blind spot determination unit 21 among other modules.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the sensor being mounted on the vehicle,
Hiramatsu teaches ([0028]): "An autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to a first embodiment of the present invention includes a condition detector 1… The autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to the first embodiment is installed in an autonomous vehicle A..." Hiramatsu further teaches ([0029]): "The condition detector 1 includes a traveling condition detector 11 which detects traveling conditions of the autonomous vehicle A, and a circumferential condition detector 12 which detects circumferential conditions of the autonomous vehicle A."
However, Hiramatsu does not outright teach determining whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation. Kawahara teaches a travel control device, comprising:
and determine whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation;
Kawahara teaches ([0030]): "The detection unit 10 is configured to include sensors which detect the positions, the relative speeds, and the sizes of peripheral vehicles which travel in a lane in which a host vehicle travels, and in adjacent lanes. The detection unit 10 is realized by a sonar device, a radar device, a camera, and the like." Kawahara further teaches ([0031]): "The cameras are respectively provided at predetermined positions in front, rear, right, and left portions of the host vehicle, and output image data for peripheral vehicles that are present on the front, rear, right, and left sides of the host vehicle." Kawahara even further teaches ([0050]): "In another example of the travel control release conditions, the travel control is released on the condition that traffic congestion is determined to occur ahead of the route of the host vehicle based on a state of a traffic flow in the periphery of the host vehicle detected by the detection unit 10, or traffic congestion information received via the communication unit 15. Thereafter, the travel control resumes on the condition that information indicative of the clearing of the traffic congestion is acquired." Kawahara still further teaches (Claim 8): "when the traffic congestion device detects that the traffic congestion ahead of the host vehicle is resolved, the control device cancels a restriction..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Kawahara to provide determining whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation. Hiramatsu and Kawahara are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle control and congestion detection. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kawahara, as doing so beneficially allows for the restriction of travel control during unsafe conditions such as traffic congestion, thereby allowing for the execution of travel control under safer conditions, as recognized by Kawahara ([0062]). Further, implementing the travel control of Kawahara outside of congestion situations beneficially serves to reduce psychological discomfort of the driver of the vehicle by taking actions to change the position of the host vehicle relative to a peripheral vehicle, as recognized by Kawahara ([0061]).
However, neither Hiramatsu nor Kawahara outright teach determining whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle, when the congestion is relieved, switching a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decreasing a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle, and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continuing automated driving control applied to the vehicle. Yashiro teaches a vehicle controller, comprising:
determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle…
Yashiro teaches ([0094]): "The control state change unit 145 makes the subject vehicle M travel at least at the first driving status or at the second driving status of which automated degree is higher than that of the first driving status or of which task required to be done by a vehicle occupant is less. The control state change unit 145 has such a condition of shifting from the first driving status to the second driving status that there is at least a vehicle traveling ahead of the subject vehicle M in a same lane recognized by the surrounding area recognition unit 142."
when the congestion is relieved, switch a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decrease a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle,
Yashiro teaches ([0009]): "The driving control part is configured to: make the subject vehicle operate at least one of a first support status, and a second support status which has an automated degree higher than that of the first support status or has a task required to be done by a vehicle occupant less than that of the first support status;" Yashiro further teaches ([0101]): "The notification control unit 146 makes a speaker 70 output speech information previously stored in the storage part 180. The speech information includes, for example: when the driving status is shifted from the second driving status to the first driving status, “the driving status is shifted to the first driving status because a traffic jam is cleared”" Thus, when the congestion is relieved, the level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle is decreased when switching from the second driving status to the first driving status.
and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continue automated driving control applied to the vehicle.
Yashiro teaches ([0083]): "Referring back to FIG. 2, the surrounding area recognition unit 142 recognizes a state such as a position, a speed, and an acceleration of a surrounding vehicle based on information inputted from the finder 20, the radar 30, the camera 40, or the like. The surrounding vehicle herein means a vehicle which is traveling in a vicinity of the subject vehicle M in a direction same as that of the subject vehicle M." Yashiro further teaches ([0184]): "In step S107, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not the subject vehicle M has entered a specific area. If the subject vehicle M is not determined to have entered the specific area (step S107: No), then, in step S108, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not any vehicle is present which is recognized by the surrounding area recognition unit 142 in a lane in which the subject vehicle M is traveling. That is, a shift from the second driving status to the third driving status makes it a condition that the surrounding area recognition unit 142 recognizes any vehicle traveling ahead of the subject vehicle M (in a lane same as that of the subject vehicle M). The condition is made so as to avoid an abrupt shift of the driving status." Thus, when the situation is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, automated driving control is continued at the second driving status.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu and Kawahara to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro to provide determining whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle, when the congestion is relieved, switching a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decreasing a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle, and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continuing automated driving control applied to the vehicle. Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle control and congestion detection. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro, as incorporating the decision to switch driving statuses of Yashiro beneficially improves driving status shifting by avoiding abrupt shifts of the driving status based on whether the vehicle is in a detection-disabled situation, as recognized by Yashiro (see at least [0184]). Further, Yashiro advantageously provides outputting speech notification of driving status shifts, including status shifts caused by the clearing of congestion, as recognized by Yashiro (see at least [0101]).
Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu teaches a method for automated driving control of a vehicle in traffic congestion, comprising:
determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road... within a predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is detectable by a sensor for detecting the situation around the vehicle,
Hiramatsu teaches ([0035]): "The blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of blind spots caused by obstacles in a traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions detected by the traveling condition detector 11 and the circumferential conditions detected by the circumferential condition detector 12... Examples of obstacles causing blind spots include other vehicles, constructions along roads, curves or slopes on roads, rain, and snow." Hiramatsu further teaches ([0032]): “The circumferential condition detector 12 detects the circumferential conditions including the number, position, and speed of traffic participants such as other vehicles or pedestrians around the autonomous vehicle A.” Hiramatsu even further teaches ([0048]): "In step S103, the blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of a blind spot caused by an obstacle on a road within a predetermined distance in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions and the circumferential conditions detected in step S102." Hiramatsu still further teaches ([0055]): "FIG. 4 illustrates an example of operation of the autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to the first embodiment in a case in which the autonomous vehicle A turns to the right at an intersection." Hiramatsu yet further teaches ([0057]): "When the autonomous vehicle A reaches the point P1, the blind spot determination unit 21 detects a vehicle B1 as a traffic participant waiting to turn right in the intersection in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A, and detects a blind spot Q caused by the vehicle B1." FIG. 4, included above, demonstrates that vehicle B1 is located ahead of the vehicle in a travel direction of the vehicle. Paragraph [0028] indicates that the autonomous vehicle operating apparatus is installed in an autonomous vehicle and includes a controller 2; paragraph [0034] further indicates that controller 2 includes the blind spot determination unit 21 among other modules.
the sensor being mounted on the vehicle;
Hiramatsu teaches ([0028]): "An autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to a first embodiment of the present invention includes a condition detector 1… The autonomous vehicle operating apparatus according to the first embodiment is installed in an autonomous vehicle A..." Hiramatsu further teaches ([0029]): "The condition detector 1 includes a traveling condition detector 11 which detects traveling conditions of the autonomous vehicle A, and a circumferential condition detector 12 which detects circumferential conditions of the autonomous vehicle A."
However, while Hiramatsu does teach a controller (see at least [0028]), Hiramatsu does not outright teach executing computer-readable instructions with a processor mounted on the vehicle, and determining whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation. Kawahara teaches a travel control device, comprising:
executing computer-readable instructions with a processor mounted on the vehicle to:
Kawahara teaches ([0034]): "The control unit 17 is an information processing device that is configured to include a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like (not illustrated) as main elements, and integrally controls each part of the travel control system 1. The control unit 17 executes various processes by causing the CPU to execute a control program stored in the ROM. A vehicle control unit 18 is connected to the control unit 17, and is a control target that is controlled via a travel control process executed by the control unit 17."
determine whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation;
Kawahara teaches ([0030]): "The detection unit 10 is configured to include sensors which detect the positions, the relative speeds, and the sizes of peripheral vehicles which travel in a lane in which a host vehicle travels, and in adjacent lanes. The detection unit 10 is realized by a sonar device, a radar device, a camera, and the like." Kawahara further teaches ([0031]): "The cameras are respectively provided at predetermined positions in front, rear, right, and left portions of the host vehicle, and output image data for peripheral vehicles that are present on the front, rear, right, and left sides of the host vehicle." Kawahara even further teaches ([0050]): "In another example of the travel control release conditions, the travel control is released on the condition that traffic congestion is determined to occur ahead of the route of the host vehicle based on a state of a traffic flow in the periphery of the host vehicle detected by the detection unit 10, or traffic congestion information received via the communication unit 15. Thereafter, the travel control resumes on the condition that information indicative of the clearing of the traffic congestion is acquired." Kawahara still further teaches (Claim 8): "when the traffic congestion device detects that the traffic congestion ahead of the host vehicle is resolved, the control device cancels a restriction..."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Kawahara to provide executing computer-readable instructions with a processor mounted on the vehicle, determining whether congestion is relieved around the vehicle, based on motion of the other vehicle detected based on a sensor signal obtained by the sensor, when the situation around the vehicle is the detection-enabled situation. Hiramatsu and Kawahara are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle control and congestion detection. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Kawahara, as doing so beneficially allows for the restriction of travel control during unsafe conditions such as traffic congestion, thereby allowing for the execution of travel control under safer conditions, as recognized by Kawahara ([0062]). Further, implementing the travel control of Kawahara outside of congestion situations beneficially serves to reduce psychological discomfort of the driver of the vehicle by taking actions to change the position of the host vehicle relative to a peripheral vehicle, as recognized by Kawahara ([0061]).
However, neither Hiramatsu nor Kawahara outright teach determining whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle, when the congestion is relieved, switching a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decreasing a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle, and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continuing automated driving control applied to the vehicle. Yashiro teaches a vehicle controller, comprising:
determine whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle…
Yashiro teaches ([0094]): "The control state change unit 145 makes the subject vehicle M travel at least at the first driving status or at the second driving status of which automated degree is higher than that of the first driving status or of which task required to be done by a vehicle occupant is less. The control state change unit 145 has such a condition of shifting from the first driving status to the second driving status that there is at least a vehicle traveling ahead of the subject vehicle M in a same lane recognized by the surrounding area recognition unit 142."
when the congestion is relieved, switch a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decrease a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle;
Yashiro teaches ([0009]): "The driving control part is configured to: make the subject vehicle operate at least one of a first support status, and a second support status which has an automated degree higher than that of the first support status or has a task required to be done by a vehicle occupant less than that of the first support status;" Yashiro further teaches ([0101]): "The notification control unit 146 makes a speaker 70 output speech information previously stored in the storage part 180. The speech information includes, for example: when the driving status is shifted from the second driving status to the first driving status, “the driving status is shifted to the first driving status because a traffic jam is cleared”" Thus, when the congestion is relieved, the level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle is decreased when switching from the second driving status to the first driving status.
and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continue automated driving control applied to the vehicle.
Yashiro teaches ([0083]): "Referring back to FIG. 2, the surrounding area recognition unit 142 recognizes a state such as a position, a speed, and an acceleration of a surrounding vehicle based on information inputted from the finder 20, the radar 30, the camera 40, or the like. The surrounding vehicle herein means a vehicle which is traveling in a vicinity of the subject vehicle M in a direction same as that of the subject vehicle M." Yashiro further teaches ([0184]): "In step S107, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not the subject vehicle M has entered a specific area. If the subject vehicle M is not determined to have entered the specific area (step S107: No), then, in step S108, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not any vehicle is present which is recognized by the surrounding area recognition unit 142 in a lane in which the subject vehicle M is traveling. That is, a shift from the second driving status to the third driving status makes it a condition that the surrounding area recognition unit 142 recognizes any vehicle traveling ahead of the subject vehicle M (in a lane same as that of the subject vehicle M). The condition is made so as to avoid an abrupt shift of the driving status." Thus, when the situation is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, automated driving control is continued at the second driving status.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu and Kawahara to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro to provide determining whether the situation around the vehicle is a detection-enabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in a same traveling direction of the vehicle, when the congestion is relieved, switching a driving mode applied to the vehicle from automated driving control to manual driving control or decreasing a level of automated driving control applied to the vehicle, and when the situation around the vehicle is a detection-disabled situation in which another vehicle traveling on a road in the same traveling direction as the vehicle, within the predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle in the travel direction of the vehicle is not detectable by the sensor, continuing automated driving control applied to the vehicle. Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle control and congestion detection. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Yashiro, as incorporating the decision to switch driving statuses of Yashiro beneficially improves driving status shifting by avoiding abrupt shifts of the driving status based on whether the vehicle is in a detection-disabled situation, as recognized by Yashiro (see at least [0184]). Further, Yashiro advantageously provides outputting speech notification of driving status shifts, including status shifts caused by the clearing of congestion, as recognized by Yashiro (see at least [0101]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro in view of Liu et al. (US 2022/0324438 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 2, Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Hiramatsu further teaches:
…[undetectable] within the predetermined distance,
Hiramatsu teaches ([0048]): "In step S103, the blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of a blind spot caused by an obstacle on a road within a predetermined distance in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions and the circumferential conditions detected in step S102."
based on map information stored in a memory or an image obtained by the sensor taking a picture in the travel direction of the vehicle,
Hiramatsu teaches ([0032]): "The circumferential condition detector 12 includes a sensor for detecting circumferential conditions of the autonomous vehicle A, such as a camera, a laser rangefinder (LRF), an ultrasonic sensor, a millimeter wave sensor, and an infrared sensor."
and the processor determines that the situation is not a detection-enabled situation, when the blind area exists.
Hiramatsu teaches ([0048]): "In step S103, the blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of a blind spot caused by an obstacle on a road within a predetermined distance in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions and the circumferential conditions detected in step S102."
However, Hiramatsu does not outright teach that the processor is further configured to determine whether there is a blind area where the other vehicle is undetectable. Liu teaches monitoring driving safety information before a vehicle enters a curve, comprising:
the processor is further configured to determine whether there is a blind area where the other vehicle is undetectable…
Liu teaches ([0202]): "It should be noted that the first safety distance is used to prevent a vehicle behind in the curve from colliding with a stopped vehicle at the end point of the curve because the vehicle behind cannot respond immediately due to a limited field of view."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu, Kawahara, and Yashiro to incorporate the teachings of Liu to provide that the processor is further configured to determine whether there is a blind area where the other vehicle is undetectable. Hiramatsu and Liu are each directed towards similar pursuits in vehicle control and determining vehicle blind areas. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Liu, as Liu incorporates a first safety distance which is used to prevent collision with a stopped vehicle at the end point of a curve when the stopped vehicle is obscured due to a blind area, as recognized by Liu ([0202]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu in view of Jonnson et al. (US 2014/0207307 A1), hereinafter Jonnson.
Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. Hiramatsu further teaches:
the processor determines that the blind area exists, when it is detected that the road in the travel direction of the vehicle has a curve within the predetermined distance
Hiramatsu teaches ([0048]): "In step S103, the blind spot determination unit 21 determines the presence or absence of a blind spot caused by an obstacle on a road within a predetermined distance in the traveling direction of the autonomous vehicle A according to the traveling conditions and the circumferential conditions detected in step S102." Hiramatsu further teaches ([0035]): "Examples of obstacles causing blind spots include other vehicles, constructions along roads, curves or slopes on roads, rain, and snow."
However, Hiramatsu does not outright teach determining that the blind area exists when the curvature of the curve of the road is not less than a predetermined threshold. Liu further teaches:
and the curvature of the curve of the road is not less than a predetermined threshold.
Liu teaches ([0202]): "It should be noted that the first safety distance is used to prevent a vehicle behind in the curve from colliding with a stopped vehicle at the end point of the curve because the vehicle behind cannot respond immediately due to a limited field of view." Liu further teaches ([0203]): "It may be learned that when the vehicle runs in the curve, if the curvature radius of the curve is excessively high, a vehicle body is prone to side-slipping or rollover. To ensure driving safety, the speed of the vehicle needs to be controlled when the vehicle enters the curve. Therefore, it is useful to calculate a relationship between the curvature radius (or referred to as a turning radius) of the curve and the safety speed of the vehicle. Specifically, a maximum speed of the vehicle when the vehicle turns under different curvature radiuses of the curve or a minimum turning radius allowed by different speeds may be calculated according to the d'Alembert principle."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu to further incorporate the teachings of Liu to provide determining that the blind area exists when the curvature of the curve of the road is not less than a predetermined threshold. Hiramatsu and Liu are each directed towards similar pursuits in vehicle control and determining vehicle blind areas. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Liu, as considering the curvature of the road allows for control of the speed of the vehicle, which ensures driving safety, as recognized by Liu ([0203]).
However, neither Hiramatsu nor Liu outright teach determining that the blind area exists when there is a shielding object inside the curve of the road, based on the map information and the current position of the vehicle or on the image. Jonnson teaches processing road profile data to detect hidden or partially hidden curves, comprising:
and that there is a shielding object inside the curve of the road,
Jonsson teaches ([0044]): "The road profile data may comprise data being representative of a curvature of the road 13, a slope of the road 13, objects 26 obscuring the road 13…" FIG. 1, included below, depicts the presence of a shielding object 25 inside the curve of the road.
PNG
media_image2.png
813
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
based on the map information and a current position of the vehicle or on the image,
Jonsson teaches ([0018]): "According to some embodiments, the road profile input means comprises an electronic map and a positioning device. Thus, in such embodiments, an electronic map and a positioning device may provide reliable road profile data representative of a road profile in front of the vehicle."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Jonsson to provide determining that the blind area exists when there is a shielding object inside the curve of the road, based on the map information and the current position of the vehicle or on the image. Hiramatsu, Liu, and Jonsson are each directed towards similar pursuits in vehicle control and determining vehicle blind areas. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Jonsson, as doing so improves driving safety through the processing of road profile data including curvature of the road, as recognized by Jonsson ([0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. However, neither Hiramatsu nor Liu outright teach that the processor determines that the blind area exists, when it is detected that the current position of the vehicle is on an upward slope and that the top of the upward slope is within the predetermined distance, based on the map information and the current position of the vehicle. Jonnson teaches processing road profile data to detect hidden or partially hidden curves, comprising:
the processor determines that the blind area exists, when it is detected that the current position of the vehicle is on an upward slope and that the top of the upward slope is within the predetermined distance,
Jonsson teaches ([0066]): "FIG. 2 illustrates a vehicle 3 comprising a vehicle driver assist arrangement 1 according to some embodiments. The vehicle 3 is traveling along a road 13. Due to a geographical formation of the road 13, a driver of the vehicle 3 is able to see the part 30 of the road 13 while a part 31 of the road 13 is hidden from an estimated line of sight of the driver. According to some embodiments, the road profile data contains slope data being representative of the slope of the road 13 in front of the vehicle 3, the detection of a hidden curve or at least a partially hidden curve is based on processing of the slope data to detect if a part of the road 13 is hidden or at least partially hidden. Thus, the slope data may indicate if a part of the road 13 is hidden from an estimated line of sight of the driver, e.g. if a part of the road 13 is hidden by a crest, edge, a top of a hill, etc." Jonsson is modified such that the detection of a hidden curve is reliant upon the circumferential condition detector 12 of Hiramatsu, which detects for blind spots in a predetermined distance (see at least [0048] of Hiramatsu).
based on the map information and a current position of the vehicle.
Jonsson teaches ([0018]): "According to some embodiments, the road profile input means comprises an electronic map and a positioning device. Thus, in such embodiments, an electronic map and a positioning device may provide reliable road profile data representative of a road profile in front of the vehicle."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiramatsu, Kawahara, Yashiro, and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Jonsson to provide that the processor determines that the blind area exists, when it is detected that the current position of the vehicle is on an upward slope and that the top of the upward slope is within the predetermined distance, based on the map information and the current position of the vehicle. Hiramatsu, Liu, and Jonsson are each directed towards similar pursuits in vehicle control and determining vehicle blind areas. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Jonsson, as doing so improves driving safety through the processing of road profile data including slope of the road, as recognized by Jonsson ([0044]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki (US 2007/0047809 A1) teaches an environment recognition device for a vehicle, including the detection of congestion locations and blind spots (see at least [0356]). Zhu (US 8,630,806 B1) teaches image processing for vehicle control, including the detection of obstacles ahead of a vehicle on a hill, wherein the sensor fails to detect obstacles hidden behind the top of the hill (see at least FIG. 5). Mizoguchi et al. (US 2019/0385459 A1) teaches a vehicle drive-assist apparatus including determining whether a preceding vehicle is positioned at the tail end of a traffic jam (see at least [0040]). Sugawara (US 2017/0116854 A1) teaches a driving assistance device, including detecting the presence (and later absence) of a traffic jam ahead of the own vehicle (see at least [0126]). Toda (US 2019/0276027 A1) teaches a vehicle control device including a congestion state determiner, wherein the congestion state determiner considers the state of preceding vehicles ahead of the own vehicle in the same lane as the own vehicle (see at least [0007]). Tsuda (US 2017/0225567 A1) teaches an autonomous driving system, including determining whether congestion is relieved around a vehicle and controlling the vehicle based on the determination of whether congestion is relieved (see at least [0052], [0072], and [0090]). Kurata (US 2018/0208196 A1) teaches a driving assistance device, including a front-view monitoring unit which determines whether it is possible to detect the loading platform of a preceding vehicle ahead of the subject vehicle (see at least [0071] and FIG. 1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662