DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 9/02/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended and claims 11 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 filed 9/02/2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot because the arguments are directed toward amendments that have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0290606 A1; hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Killing et al. (“Learning to Robustly Negotiate Bi-Directional Lane Usage in High-Conflict Driving Scenarios”; see reference U on PTO-892; hereinafter Killing), Fujita et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0373475 A1; hereinafter Fujita), Frye et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0065642 A1; hereinafter Frye), Akamatsu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0307623 A1; hereinafter Akamatsu), and You et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0097414 A1; hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses:
An apparatus for controlling an autonomous vehicle (autonomous driving assistance device 100 that performs automatic operation control on a vehicle, see at least [0048]), comprising:
a sensor configured to acquire information data of obstacles and vehicles in front of and on a side of a host vehicle (camera system 2 captures forward and surroundings of the vehicle, see at least [0049]) ;
a microprocessor (implemented by processor, see at least [0218]) configured to output data with respect to positions and media of the obstacles (control portion 1 allows the display portion 31 to display a plurality of caution items, see at least [0066] and Fig. 18) and a determination signal representing presence or absence of a vehicle on a driving path by using the information data acquired by the sensor (recognition IDs are linked with caution items for display and objects can be specified such as a vehicle or pedestrian, see at least [0079]-[0080]; recognize forward vehicle px, see at least [0178] and Fig. 27);
a controller configured to determine whether driving is possible by analyzing the data transmitted from the microprocessor, which performs data processing the information data acquired by the sensor (caution items can include “slow,” “watch for right and left,” “watch for pedestrians,” and stop, see at least [0088]) *Examiner sets forth the item to “stop” indicates a driving is not possible, furthermore, the options to continue driving such as slow means driving is possible, to interface with a driver, and to output a control signal corresponding to a selection signal of the driver (display a plurality of caution items and prompt user to select a caution item, see at least [0066] and Fig. 20);
an interface configured to transmit an image processed by the microprocessor to a display device and to make the driver to interface with the controller (display device 3 configure a human-machine interface (HMI) to receive input from user, see at least [0048]-[0049]); and
an autonomous driving function unit configured to perform autonomous driving according to the control signal provided from the controller (control portion 1 issues directive to vehicle control portion 19 so that automatic operation reflects user selection of caution item, see at least [0095] and [0141]-[0142]),
wherein the controller receives, from the driver, the selection signal for selecting autonomous driving or manual driving through the interface, and (“control portion 1 requests an emergency process and prompts the user to enter information about the hazard area or object. When the user enters the hazard area/object, the control portion 1 notifies the corresponding position to the automatic travel system so that the automatic travel system can use the position for the control. Alternatively, the user switches to the manual operation to avoid the hazard,” see at least [0113]; user can select “travel to right” and vehicle automatic operation will reflect the selection, see at least [0141]-[0142])
Watanabe does not disclose:
a drivable narrow road
wherein when a vehicle is present in an opposite lane and an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle, the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling, a width of the host vehicle and a width of the opposite lane, and
wherein the controller determines that driving is possible, when the narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane
wherein the controller inquires of the driver whether to perform autonomous driving to safely pass through the drivable narrow road or manual driving through the interface when the controller determines that driving is possible
wherein the controller controls the host vehicle to travel closely to a right virtual line according to functions of lane keeping and smart cruise control, when the autonomous driving function unit is executed, and
wherein when the host vehicle reaches a widest point of the road during autonomous traveling closely to a right side, the controller controls the host vehicle to stop at the widest point of the road at which the vehicle in the opposite lane can pass the host vehicle until the vehicle in the opposite lane is captured by a rear camera of the host vehicle
However, Killing teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
125
255
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Killing’s Top Left graph of Fig. 6
a drivable narrow road (reduced width of available road in neighborhood road, see at least page 1 col. 1, para. 2)
wherein when a vehicle is present in an opposite lane (see blue vehicle in Fig. 1) and an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle (see parked vehicles reducing road width in Fig. 1), the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (determine whether subject vehicle can travel within cruising lane while ensuring distance from obstacle, see at least [0118])
wherein the controller controls the host vehicle to travel closely to a right virtual line (see at least Fig. 6 top left figure where the ego vehicle travels to the right indicated by the blue portion of “pull over” shown in the annotated Fig. 6 above)
wherein when the host vehicle reaches a widest point of the road during autonomous traveling closely to a right side, the controller controls the host vehicle to stop at the widest point of the road at which the vehicle in the opposite lane can pass the host vehicle (see at least annotated Fig. 6 above where the ego vehicle pulls over in sections indicated in blue where the lane is widest to allow for other vehicle to pass; driving policy pulls into the next available gap once the space to the right is free and opposite vehicle is closer than some threshold distance, see page 4, col. 1, under “B. Baselines” heading)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe by adding the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to negotiate subsequent bidirectional lane usage in what we call a high-conflict scenario” (see page 1 introduction).
Additionally Fujita teaches:
a drivable narrow road (see reduced width of lane in Fig. 2A)
an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle (see vehicle stopped in lane in Fig. 2A and [0044])
the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (calculated width of lane not occupied by the obstacle out of the full width of the lane, see at least [0046])
the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (determine passable width of portion of lane that is not occupied by obstacle, see at least [0046] and Fig. 2A), a width of the host vehicle (preset value for determining whether there is possibility of traveling is obtained by adding margin to maximum vehicle width, see at least [0047]) and a width of the opposite lane (information indicating widths of lanes, see at least [0025]), and
wherein the controller determines that driving is possible, when the narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane (when the passable width is greater than the passing width (width of vehicle body plus margin) the guidance vehicle can avoid the obstacle without veering off to the next lane, see at least [0057]-[0058]) *Examiner sets forth that “narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane” is equivalent to determining whether the width of the current lane is greater than or less than the width of the host vehicle by subtracting the width of the opposite lane from each side of the equation. For example, wherein W1 denotes narrowest width of the road, W2 denotes the width of the opposite lane, and W3 denotes the width of the host vehicle:
W1 > W2+W3
W1-W2 > W3
Width of current lane at narrowest width > Width of vehicle
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe and the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing by adding the comparison taught by Fujita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “that the guidance vehicle can avoid the obstacle without veering off to the next lane” (see [0058]).
Furthermore Frye teaches:
wherein the controller inquires of the driver whether to perform autonomous driving or driving by the driver through the interface when the controller determines that driving is possible (indicating to a driver that autonomous vehicle is available and receiving occupant input to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0028], [0089] and Fig. 18)
wherein the controller inquires of the driver whether to perform autonomous driving or driving by the driver through the interface when the controller determines that driving is possible (indicating to a driver that autonomous vehicle is available and receiving occupant input to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0028], [0089] and Fig. 18),
wherein the controller receives, from the driver, the selection signal for selecting autonomous driving or driving by the driver through the interface (occupant input includes clicking a button, vocally responding, gazing at a screen, etc. to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0089])
wherein the controller outputs a control signal for enabling the autonomous driving function unit only when the controller receives the signal for selecting autonomous driving from the driver (switching from manual to autonomous operation mode occurs with an affirmative action such as pressing a button, see at least [0091]) *Examiner sets forth that One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the button is not pressed, the autonomous operation mode would not be engaged because the autonomous operation mode is only engaged with the input from the occupant
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, and the comparison taught by Fujita by adding the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to engage a mode in response to an occupant’s desires (see at least [0089]).
Furthermore, Akamatsu teaches:
the vehicle in the opposite lane is captured by a rear camera of the host vehicle (“determination as to whether or not the subject vehicle 40 has passed the other vehicle 50 may be made using a rear camera” see [0079])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, and the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye by adding the rear camera taught by Akamatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to determine a vehicle has passed (see [0079]).
Furthermore, You teaches:
lane keeping and smart cruise control (adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping assistance (LKA) system in an autonomous vehicle, see at least [0005])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, and the rear camera taught by Akamatsu by adding the ACC and LKA taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for advanced driver assistance systems in autonomous vehicles (see [0005]). Furthermore, the use of ACC and LKA are becoming increasingly common in autonomous vehicles and vehicle assistance controls.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above and Watanabe further discloses:
the sensor includes: a non-image sensor configured to perform a sensing operation for extracting information on positions and media of the obstacles present in front of and on the side of the host vehicle (radar included in the camera system 2, see at least [0117]; camera system 2 captures forward and surroundings of the vehicle, see at least [0049]; detect vehicle or obstacle ahead using radar, see at least [0163]); and
an image sensor configured to extract information on a front view image and a rear view image of the host vehicle (camera included in the camera system 2, see at least [0117]; camera system 2 captures forward and surroundings of the vehicle and imports image information around the vehicle, see at least [0049]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose:
a rear view image of the host vehicle
However, Frye teaches:
a rear view image of the host vehicle (plurality of zones can be sensed with vehicle and environmental sensors 52 including a rear view mirror zone and rear collision detection zone, see at least [0046] and Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, and the comparison taught by Fujita by adding the sensor system taught by Frye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain surrounding environment information (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above and Watanabe further discloses:
the non- image sensor includes at least one of a light detection and ranging (lidar) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, an infrared sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor (radar included in the camera system 2, see at least [0117]), and wherein the image sensor includes a plurality of cameras (plurality of cameras, see at least [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above and Watanabe further discloses:
the controller includes a storage storing programs necessary for the operation of the autonomous driving function unit (memory and processor programmed to execute functions, see at least [0218])
Watanabe and Killing do not teach:
determining narrow roads on the basis of data acquired by the sensor
information on specifications of the host vehicle
However, Fujita teaches:
determining narrow roads on the basis of data acquired by the sensor (obtain length of line segments and actual distance of passable width from image of obstacle in the lane)
information on specifications of the host vehicle (vehicle body information includes overall width of vehicle, see at least [0056])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe and the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing by adding the comparison taught by Fujita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “that the guidance vehicle can avoid the obstacle without veering off to the next lane” (see [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses:
A method for controlling an autonomous vehicle, comprising (autonomous driving assistance device 100 that performs automatic operation control on a vehicle, see at least [0048]):
acquiring, by a sensor provided in a host vehicle, information data of obstacles and vehicles in front of and on a side of the host vehicle (camera system 2 captures forward and surroundings of the vehicle, see at least [0049]);
outputting, by a microprocessor provided in the host vehicle (implemented by processor, see at least [0218]), data with respect to positions and media of the obstacles and a determination signal representing presence or absence of a vehicle on a driving path by using information on the obstacles with the sensor (control portion 1 allows the display portion 31 to display a plurality of caution items, see at least [0066] and Fig. 18; recognition IDs are linked with caution items for display and objects can be specified such as a vehicle or pedestrian, see at least [0079]-[0080]; recognize forward vehicle px, see at least [0178] and Fig. 27);
determining, by a controller provided in the host vehicle, whether driving is possible based on the image information and information on specifications of the host vehicle (caution items can include “slow,” “watch for right and left,” “watch for pedestrians,” and stop, see at least [0088]) *Examiner sets forth the item to “stop” indicates a driving is not possible, furthermore, the options to continue driving such as slow means driving is possible;
receiving, by the controller, the selection signal for selecting autonomous driving or manual driving (display device 3 configure a human-machine interface (HMI) to receive input from user, see at least [0048]-[0049]; “control portion 1 requests an emergency process and prompts the user to enter information about the hazard area or object. When the user enters the hazard area/object, the control portion 1 notifies the corresponding position to the automatic travel system so that the automatic travel system can use the position for the control. Alternatively, the user switches to the manual operation to avoid the hazard,” see at least [0113]; user can select “travel to right” and vehicle automatic operation will reflect the selection, see at least [0141]-[0142])); and
outputting, by the controller, a control signal for executing a function of an autonomous driving function unit when an autonomous driving selection signal is received from the driver (control portion 1 issues directive to vehicle control portion 19 so that automatic operation reflects user selection of caution item, see at least [0095] and [0141]-[0142]),
Watanabe does not disclose:
drivable narrow road
wherein when a vehicle is present in an opposite lane and an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle, the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling, a width of the host vehicle and a width of the opposite lane, and
wherein the controller determines that driving is possible, when the narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane
performing, by the controller, an operation of interfacing with a driver by asking whether to engage in autonomous driving to safely pass through the drivable narrow road or manual driving when the controller determines that driving is possible
wherein the controller controls the host vehicle to travel closely to a right virtual line according to functions of lane keeping and smart cruise control, when the autonomous driving function unit is executed, and
wherein when the host vehicle reaches a widest point of the road during autonomous traveling closely to a right side, the controller controls the host vehicle to stop at the widest point of the road at which the vehicle in the opposite lane can pass the host vehicle until the vehicle in the opposite lane is captured by a rear camera of the host vehicle
However, Killing teaches:
a drivable narrow road (reduced width of available road in neighborhood road, see at least page 1 col. 1, para. 2)
wherein when a vehicle is present in an opposite lane (see blue vehicle in Fig. 1) and an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle (see parked vehicles reducing road width in Fig. 1), the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (determine whether subject vehicle can travel within cruising lane while ensuring distance from obstacle, see at least [0118])
wherein the controller controls the host vehicle to travel closely to a right virtual line (see at least Fig. 6 top left figure where the ego vehicle travels to the right indicated by the blue portion of “pull over” shown in the annotated Fig. 6 above)
wherein when the host vehicle reaches a widest point of the road during autonomous traveling closely to a right side, the controller controls the host vehicle to stop at the widest point of the road at which the vehicle in the opposite lane can pass the host vehicle (see at least annotated Fig. 6 above where the ego vehicle pulls over in sections indicated in blue where the lane is widest to allow for other vehicle to pass; driving policy pulls into the next available gap once the space to the right is free and opposite vehicle is closer than some threshold distance, see page 4, col. 1, under “B. Baselines” heading)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe by adding the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to negotiate subsequent bidirectional lane usage in what we call a high-conflict scenario” (see page 1 introduction).
Additionally Fujita teaches:
a drivable narrow road (see reduced width of lane in Fig. 2A)
an obstacle is present on the driving path of the host vehicle (see vehicle stopped in lane in Fig. 2A and [0044])
the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (calculated width of lane not occupied by the obstacle out of the full width of the lane, see at least [0046])
the controller determines whether driving is possible by using a narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling (determine passable width of portion of lane that is not occupied by obstacle, see at least [0046] and Fig. 2A), a width of the host vehicle (preset value for determining whether there is possibility of traveling is obtained by adding margin to maximum vehicle width, see at least [0047]) and a width of the opposite lane (information indicating widths of lanes, see at least [0025]), and
wherein the controller determines that driving is possible, when the narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane (when the passable width is greater than the passing width (width of vehicle body plus margin) the guidance vehicle can avoid the obstacle without veering off to the next lane, see at least [0057]-[0058]) *Examiner sets forth that “narrowest width of the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is greater than a sum of the width of the host vehicle and the width of the opposite lane” is equivalent to determining whether the width of the current lane is greater than or less than the width of the host vehicle by subtracting the width of the opposite lane from each side of the equation. For example, wherein W1 denotes narrowest width of the road, W2 denotes the width of the opposite lane, and W3 denotes the width of the host vehicle:
W1 > W2+W3
W1-W2 > W3
Width of current lane at narrowest width > Width of vehicle
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe and the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing by adding the comparison taught by Fujita with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “that the guidance vehicle can avoid the obstacle without veering off to the next lane” (see [0058]).
Furthermore, Frye teaches:
performing, by the controller, an operation of interfacing with a driver by asking whether to engage in autonomous driving or manual driving when the controller determines that driving is possible (indicating to a driver that autonomous vehicle is available and receiving occupant input to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0028], [0089] and Fig. 18)
receiving, by the controller, the selection signal for selecting autonomous driving or driving by the driver (indicating to a driver that autonomous vehicle is available and receiving occupant input to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0028], [0089] and Fig. 18; occupant input includes clicking a button, vocally responding, gazing at a screen, etc. to engage autonomous driving, see at least [0089])
outputting, by the controller, a control signal for executing a function of an autonomous driving function unit only when an autonomous driving selection signal is received from the driver(switching from manual to autonomous operation mode occurs with an affirmative action such as pressing a button, see at least [0091]) *Examiner sets forth that One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the button is not pressed, the autonomous operation mode would not be engaged because the autonomous operation mode is only engaged with the input from the occupant
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, and the comparison taught by Fujita by adding the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to engage a mode in response to an occupant’s desires (see at least [0089]).
Furthermore, Akamatsu teaches:
the vehicle in the opposite lane is captured by a rear camera of the host vehicle (“determination as to whether or not the subject vehicle 40 has passed the other vehicle 50 may be made using a rear camera” see [0079])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, and the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye by adding the rear camera taught by Akamatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to determine a vehicle has passed (see [0079]).
Furthermore, You teaches:
lane keeping and smart cruise control (adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping assistance (LKA) system in an autonomous vehicle, see at least [0005])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, and the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, by adding the ACC and LKA taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for advanced driver assistance systems in autonomous vehicles (see [0005]). Furthermore, the use of ACC and LKA are becoming increasingly common in autonomous vehicles and vehicle assistance controls.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Herthan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0009062 A1)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above and Watanabe further discloses:
the microprocessor receives information on reflected waves from an object in front of the host vehicle from the non-image sensor (radar irradiates electric wave to a travel path and measures a reflected wave to detect an object, see at least [0163])
The combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You does not teach:
acquire information on the media of the obstacles based on a dielectric constant of the obstacles
However, Herthan teaches:
acquire information on the media of the obstacles based on a dielectric constant of the obstacles (“the permittivity (dielectric constant) of the material of the detected object can also be determined by the UWB radar sensor and it is therefore possible to differentiate between human/animal tissue and inanimate material,” see at least [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the permittivity taught by Herthan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to differentiate between human/animal tissue and inanimate material” (see [0021]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0304307 A1; hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the microprocessor determines that an object having a license plate in front of the host vehicle is a vehicle
However, Huang teaches:
the microprocessor determines that an object having a license plate in front of the host vehicle is a vehicle (determining whether object is vehicle by performing image and license plate recognition, see at least abstract and [0049])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the license plate recognition taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to confirm whether the object” is a vehicle (see [0022]).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Sugaiwa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0267530 A1; hereinafter Sugaiwa).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
If the controller receives a selection signal for an ignorable obstacle from the driver through the interface at a state of determining that driving is impossible from a result of analysis based on the information data acquired by the sensor and the information on the specifications of the host vehicle, the controller determines again whether driving is possible by analyzing the information data
However, Sugaiwa teaches:
If the controller receives a selection signal for an ignorable obstacle from the driver through the interface (user performs overwriting input to exclude one obstacle from obstacle recognition result to ignore the one obstacle, see at least [0065] and [0070]) at a state of determining that driving is impossible from a result of analysis based on the information data acquired by the sensor and the information on the specifications of the host vehicle, the controller determines again whether driving is possible by analyzing the information data (a travel plan is created based on the overwritten obstacle recognition result and the vehicle controller 13 performs vehicle control based on the travelling plan to autonomous travel, see at least [0054]-[0055] and steps S4-S7 in Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the user overwriting taught by Sugaiwa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
upon determining that driving is impossible, the controller receives a selection signal for an ignorable obstacle from the driver and re-determines whether driving is possible by reflecting the selection signal in the re-determination.
However, Sugaiwa teaches:
upon determining that driving is impossible (result of recognition of obstacles may require switching to manual driving, see at least [0007]), the controller receives a selection signal for an ignorable obstacle from the driver (user performs overwriting input to exclude one obstacle from obstacle recognition result to ignore the one obstacle, see at least [0065] and [0070]) and re-determines whether driving is possible by reflecting the selection signal in the re-determination (a travel plan is created based on the overwritten obstacle recognition result and the vehicle controller 13 performs vehicle control based on the travelling plan to autonomous travel, see at least [0054]-[0055] and steps S4-S7 in Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the user overwriting taught by Sugaiwa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “curb deterioration of the convenience of automated driving” (see [0005]).
Claims 9 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Nojiri et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0269031 A1; hereinafter Nojiri).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
according to any one of a condition that the vehicle is present in the opposite lane, a condition that no vehicle is present in the opposite lane, and a condition that a right turn signal is enabled, the controller derives virtual lines and determines whether driving is possible
However, Nojiri teaches:
according to any one of a condition that the vehicle is present in the opposite lane (oncoming vehicle determination unit 24 determines whether or not there is an oncoming vehicle, see at least [0027]), a condition that a right turn signal is enabled (determine whether a turn indicator is being operated, see at least [0026]), he controller derives virtual lines (determination unit looks up intended travel trajectory for host vehicle, see at least [0027]) and determines whether driving is possible (when oncoming vehicles have stopped, host vehicle is allowed to travel a right turn, see at least [0031])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the oncoming vehicle determination taught by Nojiri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “determinations of whether to allow right or left turn travel across an oncoming traffic lane can be appropriately made” (see [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the autonomous driving function unit performs autonomous driving differently according to a condition that the vehicle is present in the opposite lane, a condition that no vehicle is present in the opposite lane, and a condition that a right turn signal is enabled.
However, Nojiri teaches:
the autonomous driving function unit performs autonomous driving differently according to a condition that the vehicle is present in the opposite lane, a condition that no vehicle is present in the opposite lane (oncoming vehicle determination unit 24 determines whether or not there is an oncoming vehicle, see at least [0027]), and a condition that a right turn signal is enabled (determine whether a turn indicator is being operated, see at least [0026])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the oncoming vehicle determination taught by Nojiri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “determinations of whether to allow right or left turn travel across an oncoming traffic lane can be appropriately made” (see [0005]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Bonander (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0253091 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
498
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bonander (US 2021/0253091 A1) Figure 5
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the controller controls the host vehicle to stop when a current driving direction has been changed from an initial driving direction by 300 or more and a right turn signal is enabled
However, Bonander teaches:
the controller controls the host vehicle to stop (controller drives vehicle to its final parking position, see at least [0050]) *Examiner sets forth parking is a stopped state when a current driving direction has been changed from an initial driving direction by 300 or more (see turn on Figure 5) and a right turn signal is enabled (turn indicators are activated prior to parking, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the vehicle parking taught by Bonander with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “support a driver of a vehicle to guide a vehicle optimally into a parking spot” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above:
the controller controls the host vehicle to stop when a current driving direction has been changed from an initial driving direction by 300 or more and a right turn signal is enabled.
However, Bonander teaches:
the controller controls the host vehicle to stop (controller drives vehicle to its final parking position, see at least [0050]) *Examiner sets forth parking is a stopped state when a current driving direction has been changed from an initial driving direction by 300 or more (see turn on Figure 5) and a right turn signal is enabled (turn indicators are activated prior to parking, see at least [0048])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the vehicle parking taught by Bonander with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “support a driver of a vehicle to guide a vehicle optimally into a parking spot” (see [0003]).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Lim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0118805 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above:
the autonomous driving function unit maintains a speed of the host vehicle at 20 km/h or lower
However, Lim teaches
the autonomous driving function unit maintains a speed of the host vehicle at 20 km/h or lower (autonomous driving vehicle 600 may drive straight at 20 km/h, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the vehicle speed taught by Lim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to maintain a specific distance from the other vehicle(s) based on the calculated collision prediction information” (see [0073]). Furthermore, the use of maintaining a specific vehicle speed is well known in the art (cruise control) and the specific 20 km/h is seen as a design choice.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Watanabe, Killing, Fujita, Frye, Akamatsu, and You teaches the elements above:
the autonomous driving function unit maintains a speed of the host vehicle at 20 km/h or lower
However, Lim teaches
the autonomous driving function unit maintains a speed of the host vehicle at 20 km/h or lower (autonomous driving vehicle 600 may drive straight at 20 km/h, see at least [0073])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hazard avoidance disclosed by Watanabe, the determination of other vehicle in a reduced width road taught by Killing, the comparison taught by Fujita, the autonomous operation engaging in response to occupant input taught by Frye, the rear camera taught by Akamatsu, and the ACC and LKA taught by You by adding the vehicle speed taught by Lim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to maintain a specific distance from the other vehicle(s) based on the calculated collision prediction information” (see [0073]). Furthermore, the use of maintaining a specific vehicle speed is well known in the art (cruise control) and the specific 20 km/h is seen as a design choice.
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 e