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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/13/2022 and the amendments and remarks filed on 5/28/2025 and 09/02/2025, the Request for Continued Examination filed 10/02/2025, and the response and amendments filed 2/06/2026.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 10-15 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 20/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the combined prior art failing to teach the newly amended element “wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendment in view of Shashua et al (US 20170010618) in view of Wittkampf et al (US 20210279483) and Lenke (WO 2020142717).
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.
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) 1-3, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shashua et al (US 20170010618, hereinafter “Shashua”) in view of Wittkampf et al (US 20210279483, hereinafter “Wittkampf”) and Lenke et al (WO 2020142717, hereinafter “Lenke.”)
Regarding Claim 1, Shashua teaches:
A vehicle control system comprising: a processor configured to process data related to driving of a vehicle; (Shashua ¶ 0015 lines 1-4 "In some embodiments, an autonomous vehicle may include […] a processor configured to receive data included in a sparse map and execute the data for autonomous vehicle navigation along a road segment.")
an input device for receiving a user input for controlling a driving function of the vehicle; (Shashua ¶ 0274 lines 1-8 “User interface 170 may include any device suitable for providing information to or for receiving inputs from one or more users of system 100. In some embodiments, user interface 170 may include user input devices, [...] With such input devices, a user may be able to provide information inputs or commands to system,”)
a sensing device for acquiring data related to the driving of the vehicle from the vehicle and an external environment; (Shashua ¶ 0017 lines 1-6 “In some embodiments of the method, the navigation information may include a trajectory from each of the plurality of vehicles as each vehicle travels over the common road segment. The trajectory may be determined based on sensed motion of a camera, including three-dimensional translation and three-dimensional rotational motions.,”)
and an output device for providing information related to the driving of the vehicle, (Shashua ¶ 0275 “User interface 170 may be equipped with one or more processing devices configured to provide and receive information to or from a user [...] In some embodiments, user interface 170 may include a display, speaker, tactile device, and/or any other devices for providing output information to a user,”)
wherein the processor is configured to: initiate an autonomous driving mode; […] (Shashua ¶ 0013 lines 11-14 “The autonomous vehicle may include a processor configured to execute data included in the sparse map for providing autonomous vehicle navigation along the road segment.,” and ¶ 0114 lines 1-7 “In some embodiments, a navigation system for a vehicle may include at least one processor programmed to […] determine a navigational maneuver for the vehicle based on analysis of the at least one environmental image; cause the vehicle to initiate the navigational maneuver;”)
[…] between a route of a sparse map (Shashua ¶ 0073 lines 17-24 “The signature feature may include a road surface profile over at least a portion of the road segment. The signature feature may include a predetermined curvature associated with the road segment. Determining the current location of the vehicle may include comparing first parameter values indicative of a curvature of the predetermined road model trajectory, […]”)
and a route of a sensed data acquired using the sensing device, (Shashua ¶ 0073 lines 24-25 “[…] and second parameter values indicative of a curvature of a measured trajectory for the vehicle.,”)
wherein the sparse map includes a trajectory and a landmark as a reference point for determining a position of the vehicle; […] (Shashua ¶ 0013 lines 4-8 “The sparse map may include a polynomial representation of a target trajectory for the autonomous vehicle along the road segment; and a plurality of predetermined landmarks associated with the road segment,”)
Shashua does not teach:
[…] measure a difference value […]
[…] control the output device to output a first warning based on the difference value;
and control the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning,
and end the autonomous driving mode based on the user input,
wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Wittkampf teaches:
[…] measure a difference value […] (Wittkampf ¶ 0008-0012 “[0008] detecting driving lane boundaries in the environment image or the sequence of environment images, [0009] determining a driving lane course based on the detected driving lane boundaries; [0010] retrieving a further driving lane course from a data source; [0011] checking the plausibility of the determined driving lane course by verifying a matching of the driving lane courses; [0012] identifying a degree of matching;”)
[…] control the output device to output a first warning based on the difference value; (Wittkampf ¶ 0021 lines 1-3 “Furthermore, a warning is preferably outputted to the driver when a confidence value below a predetermined confidence threshold value is present.”)
[…] and end the autonomous driving mode based on the user input, (Wittkampf ¶ 0021 lines 3-4 “The warning can also be a take-over request for the driver”)
Shashua and Wittkampf are both considered analogous because they both relate to comparing digital maps trajectories to sensed map trajectories. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the comparison of sensed road curvature values and sparse map trajectory curvature values of Shashua with the addition of Wittkampf’s warning to the driver based on the degree of matching of curvature and take-over request as the result of a similarly described route comparison. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing erroneous steering interventions with a more exact knowledge of the driving lane course (Wittkampf ¶ 0020).
The combination of Shashua and Wittkampf does not explicitly teach:
[…] and control the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning, […]
[…] wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua and Wittkampf, Lenke teaches:
[…] and control the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning, […] wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners. (Lenke Pg 14 line 30 – Pg 15 line 5 “In one example, a vehicle operating in autonomous mode passively notifies a driver that the driver needs to take manual control of the vehicle in a set period of time, e.g., ninety seconds. The driver fails to notice the passive notification from the vehicle and continues to remain distracted (e.g., looking at their phone, reading, sleeping, watching scenery, sitting in the back seat). Upon determining that the driver remains distracted, the vehicle issues another notification to the driver that includes both audio and visual stimulation to tell the driver that they should touch a display in the vehicle to indicate that they will take over manual operation. It should be appreciated that the vehicle could require any form of affirmative input from the driver that indicates the driver is alert and acknowledged the vehicle’s notification,” teaching a first notification to a driver to take manual control, and a second notification after a predetermined period of time if no response is received that is composed of multiple alerts types that are different from one another)
Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke are all considered analogous, Shashua and Wittkampf being described previously and Lenke because they relate to vehicle driver alerts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf with the addition of Lenke’s audio and visual second notification for a driver to take manual control after a predetermined period without a response, applying the alarms of Lenke and Wittkampf to the User Interface of Shashua. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing safety (Lenke Pg 2 lines 2-3) as well as by increasing the likelihood that the driver will respond to additional alert types to ensure the that the driver is alert (Lenke Pg 14 line 32 – Pg 15 line 5).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua further teaches:
an imaging device for sensing and imaging the external environment; (Shashua ¶ 0006 lines 3-10 “The disclosed embodiments may use cameras to provide autonomous vehicle navigation features. For example, consistent with the disclosed embodiments, the disclosed systems may include one, two, or more cameras that monitor the environment of a vehicle. The disclosed systems may provide a navigational response based on, for example, an analysis of images captured by one or more of the cameras.”)
and a vehicle controller configured to control the driving of the vehicle. (Shashua ¶ 0312 lines 1-14 “FIG. 2F is a diagrammatic representation of exemplary vehicle control systems, consistent with the disclosed embodiments. As indicated in FIG. 2F, vehicle 200 may include throttling system 220, braking system 230, and steeling system 240. System 100 may provide inputs (e.g., control signals) to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230, and steering system 240 over one or more data links (e.g., any wired and/or wireless link or links for transmitting data). For example, based on analysis of images acquired by image capture devices 122, 124, and/or 126, system 100 may provide control signals to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230, and steering system 240 to navigate vehicle 200 (e.g., by causing an acceleration, a turn, a lane shift, etc.).”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to measure each of a curvature of a route recognized using the sparse map (Shashua ¶ 0778 lines 7-10 “Processing unit 110 may also determine first parameter values representative of curvatures of various segments (portions or sections) of predetermined road model trajectory 5912,”)
and a curvature of a route recognized using the sensed data. (Shashua ¶ 0470 lines 24-29 “In some embodiment, the road profile sensor 1730 may include a device configured to measure the road curvature. For example, a camera (e.g., camera 122 or another camera) may be used to capture images of the road showing road curvatures. Vehicle 1205 may use such images to detect road curvatures,” and ¶ 0778 lines 10-12 “Further, processing unit 110 may determine second parameter values representative of a curvature of travelled trajectory 5914,”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein when the user input does not exist after outputting the first warning,
the processor is configured to control the output device to output the second warning.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua and Wittkampf, Lenke teaches:
wherein when the user input does not exist after outputting the first warning, the processor is configured to control the output device to output the second warning. (Lenke Pg 14 line 30 – Pg 15 line 5 “In one example, a vehicle operating in autonomous mode passively notifies a driver that the driver needs to take manual control of the vehicle in a set period of time, e.g., ninety seconds. The driver fails to notice the passive notification from the vehicle and continues to remain distracted (e.g., looking at their phone, reading, sleeping, watching scenery, sitting in the back seat). Upon determining that the driver remains distracted, the vehicle issues another notification to the driver that includes both audio and visual stimulation to tell the driver that they should touch a display in the vehicle to indicate that they will take over manual operation. It should be appreciated that the vehicle could require any form of affirmative input from the driver that indicates the driver is alert and acknowledged the vehicle’s notification,” teaching acknowledgement based on driver input)
Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke are all considered analogous, Shashua and Wittkampf being described previously and Lenke because they relate to vehicle driver alerts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf with the addition of Lenke’s multiple additional notifications for a driver to take manual control after a predetermined period without a response, applying the alarms of Lenke and Wittkampf to the User Interface of Shashua. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing safety (Lenke Pg 2 lines 2-3) as well as by increasing the likelihood that the driver will respond to additional alert types to ensure the that the driver is alert (Lenke Pg 14 line 32 – Pg 15 line 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Shashua teaches:
A method for driving a vehicle using a vehicle control system, the method comprising: initiating an autonomous driving mode; […] (Shashua ¶ 0013 lines 11-14 “The autonomous vehicle may include a processor configured to execute data included in the sparse map for providing autonomous vehicle navigation along the road segment.,” and ¶ 0114 lines 1-7 “In some embodiments, a navigation system for a vehicle may include at least one processor programmed to […] determine a navigational maneuver for the vehicle based on analysis of the at least one environmental image; cause the vehicle to initiate the navigational maneuver;”)
[…] between a route of a sparse map (Shashua ¶ 0073 lines 17-24 “The signature feature may include a road surface profile over at least a portion of the road segment. The signature feature may include a predetermined curvature associated with the road segment. Determining the current location of the vehicle may include comparing first parameter values indicative of a curvature of the predetermined road model trajectory, […]”)
and a route of sensed data (Shashua ¶ 0073 lines 24-25 “[…] and second parameter values indicative of a curvature of a measured trajectory for the vehicle.,”)
acquired using a sensing device of the vehicle control system, (Shashua ¶ 0017 lines 1-6 “In some embodiments of the method, the navigation information may include a trajectory from each of the plurality of vehicles as each vehicle travels over the common road segment. The trajectory may be determined based on sensed motion of a camera, including three-dimensional translation and three-dimensional rotational motions.,”)
wherein the sparse map includes a trajectory and a landmark as a reference point for determining a position of the vehicle; (Shashua ¶ 0013 lines 4-8 “The sparse map may include a polynomial representation of a target trajectory for the autonomous vehicle along the road segment; and a plurality of predetermined landmarks associated with the road segment,”)
controlling an output device of the vehicle control system […] (Shashua ¶ 0275 “User interface 170 may be equipped with one or more processing devices configured to provide and receive information to or from a user [...] In some embodiments, user interface 170 may include a display, speaker, tactile device, and/or any other devices for providing output information to a user,”)
Shashua does not teach:
[…] measuring a difference value […]
[…] to output a first warning based on the difference value;
and controlling the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning,
and ending the autonomous driving mode,
wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Wittkampf teaches:
[…] measuring a difference value […] (Wittkampf ¶ 0008-0012 “[0008] detecting driving lane boundaries in the environment image or the sequence of environment images, [0009] determining a driving lane course based on the detected driving lane boundaries; [0010] retrieving a further driving lane course from a data source; [0011] checking the plausibility of the determined driving lane course by verifying a matching of the driving lane courses; [0012] identifying a degree of matching;”)
[…] to output a first warning based on the difference value; […] (Wittkampf ¶ 0021 lines 1-3 “Furthermore, a warning is preferably outputted to the driver when a confidence value below a predetermined confidence threshold value is present.”)
[…] and ending the autonomous driving mode. (Wittkampf ¶ 0021 lines 3-4 “The warning can also be a take-over request for the driver”)
Shashua and Wittkampf are both considered analogous because they both relate to comparing digital maps trajectories to sensed map trajectories. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the comparison of sensed road curvature values and sparse map trajectory curvature values of Shashua with the addition of Wittkampf’s warning to the driver based on the degree of matching of curvature and take-over request as the result of a similarly described route comparison. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by preventing erroneous steering interventions with a more exact knowledge of the driving lane course (Wittkampf ¶ 0020).
The combination of Shashua and Wittkampf does not explicitly teach:
[…] and controlling the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning, […] wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua and Wittkampf, Lenke teaches:
[…] and controlling the output device to output a second warning having a higher level than a level of the first warning, based on that the autonomous driving mode is maintained after outputting the first warning, […] wherein the first warning is in one manner, and the second warning is in at least two different manners. (Lenke Pg 14 line 30 – Pg 15 line 5 “In one example, a vehicle operating in autonomous mode passively notifies a driver that the driver needs to take manual control of the vehicle in a set period of time, e.g., ninety seconds. The driver fails to notice the passive notification from the vehicle and continues to remain distracted (e.g., looking at their phone, reading, sleeping, watching scenery, sitting in the back seat). Upon determining that the driver remains distracted, the vehicle issues another notification to the driver that includes both audio and visual stimulation to tell the driver that they should touch a display in the vehicle to indicate that they will take over manual operation. It should be appreciated that the vehicle could require any form of affirmative input from the driver that indicates the driver is alert and acknowledged the vehicle’s notification,” teaching a first notification to a driver to take manual control, and a second notification after a predetermined period of time if no response is received that is composed of multiple alerts types that are different from one another)
Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke are all considered analogous, Shashua and Wittkampf being described previously and Lenke because they relate to vehicle driver alerts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf with the addition of Lenke’s multiple additional notifications for a driver to take manual control after a predetermined period without a response, applying the alarms of Lenke and Wittkampf to the User Interface of Shashua. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by increasing safety (Lenke Pg 2 lines 2-3) as well as by increasing the likelihood that the driver will respond to additional alert types to ensure the that the driver is alert (Lenke Pg 14 line 32 – Pg 15 line 5).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 16 as described above. Shashua further teaches:
measuring each of a curvature of a route recognized using the sparse map (Shashua ¶ 0778 lines 7-10 “Processing unit 110 may also determine first parameter values representative of curvatures of various segments (portions or sections) of predetermined road model trajectory 5912,”)
and a curvature of a route recognized using the sensed data. (Shashua ¶ 0470 lines 24-29 “In some embodiment, the road profile sensor 1730 may include a device configured to measure the road curvature. For example, a camera (e.g., camera 122 or another camera) may be used to capture images of the road showing road curvatures. Vehicle 1205 may use such images to detect road curvatures,” and ¶ 0778 lines 10-12 “Further, processing unit 110 may determine second parameter values representative of a curvature of travelled trajectory 5914,”)
Claim(s) 4, 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shashua in view of Wittkampf and Lenke and further in view of Sagisaka (US 20070282558, hereinafter referred to as Sagisaka).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 3 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein when the curvature is smaller than or equal to a specified value, the processor is configured to determine the recognized route as a curved road;
or when the curvature is greater than the specified value, the processor is configured to determine the recognized route as a straight road.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sagisaka teaches:
wherein when the curvature is smaller than or equal to a specified value, the processor is configured to determine the recognized route as a curved road; (Sagisaka ¶ 0053 lines 8-16 “Then, the ECU 110 determines that the current road is the curved road, when the calculated curvature radius is smaller than a predetermined value (the curvature radius of the current road; & the predetermined value). As shown in FIG. 4, the curvature radius shows a curving degree of a curved line. Therefore, as the curvature radius is smaller, the curving degree of the curved line becomes larger. As the curvature radius becomes larger, the curved line becomes closer to a straight line,” and ¶ 0054 lines 1-4 “In the case that the ECU 110 determines at the step S220 that the current road is the curved road, the ECU 110 renews the content of the flag at the following step S221 to "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=1.”)
or when the curvature is greater than the specified value, the processor is configured to determine the recognized route as a straight road. (Sagisaka ¶ 0054 lines 4-8 "On the other hand, when the ECU 110 determines at the step S220 that the current road is not the curved road, the ECU 110 renews the content of the flag at the following step S222 to "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=0," and ¶ 0055 lines 3-13 “In the case that the condition for "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=1?" is not satisfied, the ECU 110 determines that the vehicle is running straight ahead on the road, and the process moves to a step S121, at which the ECU 110 determines whether a condition for "Flag (Curved Road Running) i-1=1?" is satisfied or not. Namely, the ECU 110 determines at the step S121 whether the vehicle has been running straight ahead or the vehicle has passed through the curved road. In case of "No" at the step S121, that is, when the vehicle has been running straight ahead on the road, the process of FIG. 2 is terminated.”)
Shashua and Sagisaka are both considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle condition sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf by adding Sagisaka’s flagging of a route as curved or straight based on a predetermined curvature value. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by precisely determining a categorization of road straightness (Sagisaka ¶ 0067) for objective comparison.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein when a type of a route recognized using the sparse map and a type of a route recognized using the sensed data are different from each other,
the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sagisaka teaches:
wherein when a type of a route recognized using the sparse map and a type of a route recognized using the sensed data are different from each other, (Sagisaka ¶ 0060 lines 1-18 “When the vehicle passes through the curved road at the time point t5, the ECU 110 determines at the step S120 that the vehicle is running straight forward, so that the process goes to the step S121. The ECU 110 determines at the step S121 that the vehicle has passed through the curved road, so that the process goes to the step S150. The ECU 110 compares at the step S150 whether the deviation of the steered angle, that is, the maximum value of the steered angle (the maximum value of the output from the sensor 121), during the period of the vehicle running on the curved road, with a predetermined threshold value. Namely, the ECU 110 determines whether a condition for "the deviation of the steered angle; the predetermined threshold value?" is satisfied. In the case that the above condition is satisfied at the step S150, namely in the case that the deviation of the steered angle is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the ECU 110 determines the abnormal condition of the steering angle sensor 121,” teaching a process in which a calculated route type (curved road determination according to ¶ 0053-0054 as described above) is compared to a sensed route type (sensed steering angle of steered road to determine whether the car is turning or not))
the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning. (Sagisaka ¶ 0060 lines 18-19 “so that the process goes to the step S151 at which the warning lamp 132 is turned on”)
Shashua and Sagisaka are both considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle abnormal condition sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf by adding Sagisaka’s warning if the mapped route type does not match the sensed route type. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the ability to determine an abnormal situation of the vehicle (Sagisaka ¶ 0066).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 17 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
when the curvature is smaller than or equal to a specified value, determining the recognized route as a curved road;
and when the curvature is greater than the specified value, determining the recognized route as a straight road.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sagisaka teaches:
when the curvature is smaller than or equal to a specified value, determining the recognized route as a curved road; (Sagisaka ¶ 0053 lines 8-16 “Then, the ECU 110 determines that the current road is the curved road, when the calculated curvature radius is smaller than a predetermined value (the curvature radius of the current road; the predetermined value). As shown in FIG. 4, the curvature radius shows a curving degree of a curved line. Therefore, as the curvature radius is smaller, the curving degree of the curved line becomes larger. As the curvature radius becomes larger, the curved line becomes closer to a straight line,” and ¶ 0054 lines 1-4 “In the case that the ECU 110 determines at the step S220 that the current road is the curved road, the ECU 110 renews the content of the flag at the following step S221 to "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=1.”)
and when the curvature is greater than the specified value, determining the recognized route as a straight road. (Sagisaka ¶ 0054 lines 4-8 "On the other hand, when the ECU 110 determines at the step S220 that the current road is not the curved road, the ECU 110 renews the content of the flag at the following step S222 to "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=0," and ¶ 0055 lines 3-13 “In the case that the condition for "Flag (Curved Road Running) i=1?" is not satisfied, the ECU 110 determines that the vehicle is running straight ahead on the road, and the process moves to a step S121, at which the ECU 110 determines whether a condition for "Flag (Curved Road Running) i-1=1?" is satisfied or not. Namely, the ECU 110 determines at the step S121 whether the vehicle has been running straight ahead or the vehicle has passed through the curved road. In case of "No" at the step S121, that is, when the vehicle has been running straight ahead on the road, the process of FIG. 2 is terminated.”)
Shashua and Sagisaka are both considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle condition sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf by adding Sagisaka’s flagging of a route as curved or straight based on a predetermined curvature value. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by precisely determining a categorization of road straightness (Sagisaka ¶ 0067) for objective comparison.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 16 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein the controlling of the output device to output the first warning includes: when a type of a route recognized using the sparse map and a type of a route recognized using the sensed data are different from each other,
outputting the first warning.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sagisaka teaches:
wherein the controlling of the output device to output the first warning includes: when a type of a route recognized using the sparse map and a type of a route recognized using the sensed data are different from each other, (Sagisaka ¶ 0060 lines 1-18 “When the vehicle passes through the curved road at the time point t5, the ECU 110 determines at the step S120 that the vehicle is running straight forward, so that the process goes to the step S121. The ECU 110 determines at the step S121 that the vehicle has passed through the curved road, so that the process goes to the step S150. The ECU 110 compares at the step S150 whether the deviation of the steered angle, that is, the maximum value of the steered angle (the maximum value of the output from the sensor 121), during the period of the vehicle running on the curved road, with a predetermined threshold value. Namely, the ECU 110 determines whether a condition for "the deviation of the steered angle; the predetermined threshold value?" is satisfied. In the case that the above condition is satisfied at the step S150, namely in the case that the deviation of the steered angle is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the ECU 110 determines the abnormal condition of the steering angle sensor 121,” teaching a process in which a calculated route type (curved road determination according to ¶ 0053-0054 as described above) is compared to a sensed route type (sensed steering angle of steered road to determine whether the car is turning or not))
outputting the first warning. (Sagisaka ¶ 0060 lines 18-19 “so that the process goes to the step S151 at which the warning lamp 132 is turned on”)
Shashua and Sagisaka are both considered analogous because they both relate to vehicle abnormal condition sensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf by adding Sagisaka’s warning if the mapped route type does not match the sensed route type. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the ability to determine an abnormal situation of the vehicle (Sagisaka ¶ 0066).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke and further in view of Thompson et al (US20200400439, hereinafter referred to as Thompson).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein when the difference value is greater than a first threshold value,
the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Thompson teaches:
wherein when the difference value is greater than a first threshold value, (Thompson ¶ 0048 lines 1-7 “In summary of the various embodiments described herein, the curvature module 305 can identify potential errors in a digital map geometry by comparing the curvature in the existing map with the curvature derived from location trace data (e.g., vehicle or device GPS traces). Whenever the difference between the curvatures obtained from the two methods is larger than a certain tolerance threshold […],”)
the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning. (Thompson ¶ 0048 lines 8-10 “ […] the location and/or geometry can be flagged, e.g., for […]warning,”)
Shashua and Thompson are both considered analogous because they both relate to comparing digital maps trajectories to sensed map trajectories. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the comparison of sensed curvature values with sparse map trajectory curvature values of Shashua and Wittkampf’s warning to the driver and take-over request as the result of a similarly described route comparison by simply substituting Wittkampf’s comparison criteria with Thompson’s difference between the curvature values exceeding a tolerance threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by streamlining and simplifying the calculation to improve speed and conserve calculation resources.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 16 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein the controlling of the output device to output the first warning includes: when the difference value is greater than or equal to a first threshold value,
outputting the first warning.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Thompson teaches:
wherein the controlling of the output device to output the first warning includes: when the difference value is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, (Thompson ¶ 0048 lines 1-7 “In summary of the various embodiments described herein, the curvature module 305 can identify potential errors in a digital map geometry by comparing the curvature in the existing map with the curvature derived from location trace data (e.g., vehicle or device GPS traces). Whenever the difference between the curvatures obtained from the two methods is larger than a certain tolerance threshold […],”)
outputting the first warning. (Thompson ¶ 0048 lines 8-10 “ […] the location and/or geometry can be flagged, e.g., for […]warning,”)
Shashua and Thompson are both considered analogous because they both relate to comparing digital maps trajectories to sensed map trajectories. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the comparison of sensed curvature values with sparse map trajectory curvature values of Shashua and Wittkampf’s warning to the driver and take-over request as the result of a similarly described route comparison by simply substituting Wittkampf’s comparison criteria with Thompson’s difference between the curvature values exceeding a tolerance threshold. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by streamlining and simplifying the calculation to improve speed and conserve calculation resources.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke and further in view of Sung (KR 20150042032, hereinafter “Sung,” all excerpts and citations taken from attached translation document).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, and Lenke teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning in a pop-up form on a cluster of the vehicle.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sung teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to control the output device to output the first warning in a pop-up form on a cluster of the vehicle. (Sung Pg 3 ¶ 10 lines 1-2 “That is, the alert notification controller 500 may control the cluster […] to differentiate the color of the pop-up frame based on the importance of the warning situation,”)
Shashua, Wittkampf, Lenke, and Sung are all considered analogous because they all relate to vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf with the simple substitution of the warning for Sung’s pop-up notification on the cluster. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by speeding up the driver’s risk recognition (Sung Pg 3 ¶ 10 lines 1-3).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Shashua, Wittkampf, Lenke, and Sung teaches the elements of Claim 7 as described above. Shashua does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to control the output device to output the second warning onto the cluster in order to output the second warning
and at the same time, to output a warning notification sound in an audio manner.
Within the same field of endeavor as Shashua, Sung teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to control the output device to output the second warning (Sung Pg 4 ¶ 7 lines 2-3 “the warning notification controller 500 displays the second warning of the warning”)
onto the cluster in order to output the second warning (Sung Pg 3 ¶ 10 lines 1-2 “That is, the alert notification controller 500 may control the cluster […] to differentiate the color of the pop-up frame based on the importance of the warning situation,”)
and at the same time, to output a warning notification sound in an audio manner. (Sung Pg 4 ¶ 10 line 1-2 “if the driver does not sense the warning at S200, the alert notification controller may move the warning to the HUD […] to output a warning sound,” teaching a case where the follow-up warning and audio alert are simultaneous)
Shashua, Wittkampf, Lenke, and Sung are all considered analogous because they all relate to vehicle control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the map route comparison of Shashua and map comparison warning of Wittkampf and second warning of Sung by adding Sung’s warning sound that is output with the second warning. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by speeding up the driver’s risk recognition (Sung Pg 3 ¶ 10 lines 1-3).
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 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 ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights