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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-21 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claim 13 has been added and claims 22 and 23 have been canceled 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 Objections
Claims 13 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 was previously canceled and should have remained as such. Any new claims should be added as the next claim number not previously used. See MPEP 714.II.C: “A canceled claim can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number.”
Claim 13 recites “a statice perception module”, which is assumed to be “a static perception module”.
Claim 21 recites “generate the activation control signal the ADAS feature in response”, which is not grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the specified tolerance level" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori in view of 2021/0163039 to Iwamoto 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 (a) sensor status signals from a plurality of sensors, (b) sensor-based information from said plurality of sensors, and (c) map-based information from said digital map, and (ii) configured to (a) determine that a current operational situation exists that is unsafe for an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) automation feature to be active, and (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, but does not explicitly disclose that the unsafe operational situation is based on the sensor status signals indicating a low signal confidence corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sensors,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Iwamoto (Iwamoto; At least paragraph(s) 111, 113, and 117; degree or level of a failed sensor is interpreted as the same as a confidence in the sensor and its signal). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Iwamoto 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. A certain level of failure of one or more sensors makes it difficult for the vehicle to operate autonomously, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 76 of Iwamoto, so turning off the ADAS features would create a safer operation. Further, a certain level of failure of one or more sensors would not allow comparison of the sensor data to the map data, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 6-7 of Chikamori, also leading to an unsafe situation that would be improved by deactivating the ADAS features.
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.
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, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori, in view of Iwamoto as applied to claims 1, 11, 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.
As per claim 13, 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 statice perception module configured to perform sensor fusion of vision detections and radar detections, and
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Pandey (Pandey; At least paragraph(s) 2 and 46). 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 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 decrease the uncertainty of the data, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 2 of Pandey.
generate static and dynamic object reporting communicating the on-board sensor-based operational situation information (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 98 and 99).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-8, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori, in view of Iwamoto 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.
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 You (You; At least paragraph(s) 36, 64, 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 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 disable 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 the specified tolerance level (Chikamori; At least paragraph(s) 92 and 109).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The prior art above is interpreted to teach all of the claim limitations; however, in the event that Iwamoto is interpreted as not teaching the limitations, an alternate rejection is provided below for compact prosecution.
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, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikamori in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0241878 to Crombez et al, and in further view of Pandey and You.
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 (a) sensor status signals from a plurality of sensors, (b) sensor-based information from said plurality of sensors, and (c) map-based information from said digital map, and (ii) configured to (a) determine that a current operational situation exists that is unsafe for an advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) automation feature to be active, and (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, but does not explicitly disclose that the unsafe operational situation is based on the sensor status signals indicating a low signal confidence corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sensors,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Crombez (Crombez; At least paragraph(s) 42). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Crombez 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. Sensors are required for autonomous driving, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 1 of Crombez, so low confidence in one or more sensors would create an unsafe condition that would require deactivating the corresponding autonomous feature or switching to manual control. Further, failure of one or more sensors would not allow comparison of the sensor data to the map data, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 6-7 of Chikamori, also leading to an unsafe situation that would be improved by deactivating the ADAS features.
Claims 3-8, 10-14, and 16-21 are rejected the same as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12/09/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that the prior art does not teach “based on the sensor status signals indicating a low signal confidence corresponding to at least one of the plurality of sensors”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Iwamoto, in at least paragraph(s) 113, teaches the failure status indicating a degree or level of the failure, which for a sensor would be a degree of failure of the signal, or a confidence in the signal. The claim, and specification, provides no specific definition for a low signal confidence, therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a level of failure of a sensor is interpreted to be the same as a low signal confidence. Further, in paragraph(s) at least 117, Iwamoto continues to discuss the level of failure of the sensors in terms of the sensor performance of each sensor. Lastly, in the final Office Action dated, March 29, 2024, and maintained above, an alternate rejection was provided for the claims in view of Crombez. Since no arguments were provided against Crombez or the dependent claims, these rejections are also maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 3669
Prosecution Insights