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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14, 16-21, and 24-26 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 13, 22 and 23 have been canceled and claims 24-26 have been added since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0221305 to Chikamori in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0149923 to Fang et al.
As per claim 1, Chikamori discloses an apparatus (Chikamori; At least the abstract) comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to detect information about an exterior environment of a vehicle (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 39-41);
a memory configured to store a digital map configured to provide information about roadways in a vicinity of said vehicle (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 66 and 70); and
a control unit (i) comprising an interface configured to receive (b) sensor-based information from said plurality of sensors, and (c) map-based information from said digital map, and (ii) configured to wherein an operational design domain aggregator evaluates (2) a static operational design domain assessment signal based on the sensor-based information and the map-based information, (b) generate an activation control signal to cause the ADAS automation feature to become or remain deactivated, in response to determining that the current operational situation is unsafe for the ADAS feature to be active (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 56, 57, 92, 102, and 109).
Chikamori discloses receiving sensor and map information and deactivating ADAS features in response to an unsafe operational situation detected based on the sensor-based information and the map-based information, but does not explicitly disclose (a) sensor status signals from a plurality of sensors, (a) determine, based on the sensor status signals indicating a low signal confidence corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sensors, that a current operational situation exists that is unsafe for an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) automation feature to be active,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fang (Fang; At least paragraph(s) 21 and 22). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fang into the invention of Chikamori with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Driver-assistance systems rely on the sensors for sensing the surrounding environment, thus confidence in the sensor signals is required to safely control the vehicle, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 3 and 4 of Fang. Therefore, it would be obvious to one in the art to deactivate the driver-assistance system if a low confidence in the sensor signal were received. Combining Fang into the invention of Chikamori would result in a system that deactivates the driver-assistance systems in the case of unsafe operational situations, that is, if either signal confidence or sensor-to-map matching indicates an unsafe situation independently.
As per claim 4, Chikamori discloses wherein said interface of said control unit is further configured to receive satellite-based position information (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 45).
As per claim 5, Chikamori discloses wherein said ADAS automation feature comprises an autopilot mode of said vehicle (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 63).
As per claim 10, Chikamori discloses wherein said control unit is configured to generate the activation control signal based on a static operational design domain assessment signal and a vehicle location confirmation signal (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 92, 95, 98, and 102).
As per claim 11, Chikamori discloses wherein said control unit further comprises an activation monitor module configured to generate the static operational design domain assessment signal based on map-based operational situation information and on-board sensor-based operational information (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 102 and 109).
As per claim 12, Chikamori discloses wherein said control unit further comprises a localization module configured to generate a vehicle location confirmation signal based on the map-based operational situation information and the onboard sensor-based operational situation information (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 95-101).
As per claims 14, 17, and 18, Chikamori discloses the method of using the apparatus of claims 1, 4, and 5 (Chikamori; At least the abstract). Therefore, claims 14, 17, and 18 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5.
As per claim 21, Chikamori does not explicitly disclose wherein said control unit is further configured to: determine validity of the sensor-based information based on the sensor status signals; and
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fang (Fang; At least paragraph(s) 4, 21, and 22). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fang into the invention of Chikamori with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Autonomous driving and ADAS features are dependent on sensor data, therefore, determining validity of the sensors would provide a safer system and avoid dangerous situations.
Chikamori discloses generate the deactivation control signal to deactivate the ADAS feature in response to at least on of (i) the sensor-based information being invalid and (ii) the map-based information and the static objects not matching within a specified tolerance level (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 92 and 109).
As per claim 24, Chikamori discloses using the multiple sensors to detect static and dynamic objects in the environment (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 39-41, 98, and 99), but does not explicitly disclose wherein said control unit further comprises a static perception module configured to perform sensor fusion of vision detections and radar detections, and
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fang (Fang; At least paragraph(s) 30-32 and 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fang into the invention of Chikamori with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Fusing sensor data, especially from different types of sensors, is well-known in the art and used to more accurately detect objects and analyze sensor information, similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 9 and 32).
Chikamori discloses generate static and dynamic object reporting communicating the on-board sensor-based operational situation information (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 98 and 99).
As per claim 25, Chikamori does not explicitly disclose wherein said sensor status signals comprise at least one of internal error information, signal availability information, and signal confidence information reported by said plurality of sensors.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Fang (Fang; At least paragraph(s) 10, 21, and 22). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Fang into the invention of Chikamori with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Knowing the sensor confidence and availability provides valuable information of since driver-assistance system rely on the sensor, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 3 of Fang.
As per claim 26, Chikamori, in view of Fang, discloses wherein a failure of either said sensor status signals or said static operational design domain assessment signal independently causes the ADAS feature to become or remain deactivated (As discussed above, both Chikamori and Fang teach a situation that is unsafe for driver-assistance systems to continue, resulting in deactivating the driver-assistance system. Therefore, either situation independently will be determined to be unsafe and result in deactivation of the driver-assistance system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori, in view of Fang as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and in further view of 2021/0208245 to Pandey et al.
As per claims 3 and 16, Chikamori discloses wherein said plurality of sensors comprises a forward looking camera, a forward looking radar sensor (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 39 and 41),
Chikamori discloses that the sensors can comprise a plurality of sensors, but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of front corner radar sensors.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Pandey (Pandey; At least figure 1, item 32). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Pandey into the invention of Chikamori with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Using multiple sensors around a vehicle for driver assistance features is well-known in the art and how many and where the sensors are located would be a matter of design choice for based on cost, design parameters, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-8, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori, in view of Fang as applied to claims 1 or 14, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0292833 to You et al.
As per claims 6 and 19, Chikamori discloses wherein said control unit is configured to determine whether said operational situation exists that is unsafe for activating said advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) feature (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 92 and 109)
Chikamori does not explicitly disclose in compliance with at least one of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Level 2 and Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) A.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by You (You; At least paragraph(s) 9 and 39-49 and figure 5; this limitation is being broadly interpreted as using any nationally recognized standard). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of You into the invention of Chikamori with the motivation of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success. Using established guidelines provides the ability to more easily show safety and acceptability, receive regulatory approval, etc.
As per claims 7, 8, and 20, Chikamori discloses wherein said unsafe operational situation comprises at least one of (i) absence of a median barrier to oncoming traffic, (ii) absence of a guardrail to an off-road area, (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 98, 101, and 102), thus disclosing the scope of the claim as written.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Chikamori does not explicitly disclose [7, 20] wherein said unsafe operational situation comprises at least one of (iii) presence of an intersection, (iv) presence of a road legally accessible to vulnerable road users (VRUs), and (v) presence of tollbooths or border stations and [8] wherein said vulnerable road users comprise one or more of pedestrians, bicyclists, and school children.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by You (You; At least paragraph(s) 58 and 67). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of You into the invention of Chikamori with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Identifying situations early that may lead to unexpected situations that require driver attention, such as pedestrians being nearby, would allow the driver to take control earlier in order to be adequately prepared, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 5 and 7 of You.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached on 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights