DETAILED ACTION
The supplemental amendments filed 2/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 14 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-22, and 24-25 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
Notice 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 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive and moot.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the transition from a current determined type on pages 10-11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The determined “type” of minimal risk maneuvers are outlined in the claims as a straight stop (first level type), current lane stop (second level type), and out-of-lane stop (third level type). Nakatsuka discloses that if a lane change cannot be performed (third level type) within a predetermined time, then the vehicle is pulled over to a median and stopped (second level type). Therefore, Nakatsuka teaches transitioning from a current level (third, being the out-of-lane stop) to a lower level (second, being the current lane stop). Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejection for the limitation is maintained as outlined below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the execution time, a new combination of references have been relied upon to teach the added limitation and the arguments are considered moot.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant has submitted replacement sheets with a corrected figure 15. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, the 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, 6-7, 12, 14-15, 19-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0094575 A1; hereinafter Sato) in view of Nakatsuka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0113694 A1; hereinafter Nakatsuka) and further in view of Nishimura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0021829 A1) and Miller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0232099 A1; hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses:
An autonomous vehicle comprising (vehicle 1 equipped with driving control system for automated driving, see at least [0030]): a sensor which senses an environment around the vehicle and generates data related to the environment (external sensor 21 for detecting vehicle surrounding environment, see at least [0030]);
a processor (automated driving controller 10 includes CPU, see at least [0035]) which monitors a state of the vehicle to generate data related to the state of the vehicle (internal sensor 22 for measuring movement state of vehicle, see at least [0034]), and
controls autonomous driving of the vehicle (controller/actuator includes electric power steering controller 31 and engine controller 32 for steering and acceleration/deceleration control, see at least [0031]); and
a controller which controls operations of the vehicle according to the control of the processor (vehicle control part 13 transmits steering angle command for path following, see at least [0038]),
wherein the processor generates a request for a minimal risk maneuver (when operator takeover does not occur, minimal risk maneuver is activated, see at least [0063]),
determines a failure state of the vehicle (determine whether there is a failure or fault, see at least [0084]),
determines a type of the minimal risk maneuver according to the failure state of the vehicle (if failure flag is set and operator does not take over, minimal risk maneuver (MRM) is activated, see at least [0089]; shifting to minimal risk condition when failure occurs, and control for evacuation to a road shoulder, see at least [0062]; MRM is composed of four functions of in-lane driving, lane change, shoulder evacuation, and deceleration and stop, see at least [0065]) *Examiner sets forth the failure state is present and depending on the environment, a different function of the MRM is caried out, the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising an out-of-lane stop as a third level type (evacuation to a road shoulder, see at least [0062]), and
controls to perform the minimal risk maneuver in accordance with the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver (if lane change can be performed, automated lane change is performed, see at least [0100])
Sato does not explicitly disclose:
determines a type of the minimal risk maneuver according to the failure state of the vehicle, the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a straight stop as a first level type, a current lane stop as a second level type
wherein the processor controls the controller to perform transition from a current determined type of the minimal risk maneuver to a level type of the minimal risk maneuver lower than the current determined type, based on that the current determined type is not completed within a predetermined execution time, and
wherein the execution time varies depending on the minimal risk maneuver
However, Nakatsuka teaches:
the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a current lane stop as a second level type (see Fig. 4 vehicle stopped in current lane)
wherein the processor controls the controller to perform transition from a current determined type of the minimal risk maneuver to a level type of the minimal risk maneuver lower than the current determined type, based on that the current determined type is not completed within a predetermined execution time (if it is determined that lane change cannot be made in a predetermined time because a nearby vehicle prevents a lane change, the controller 15 does not cause lane change to be made an causes the vehicle to be pulled over to median strip and stopped, see at least [0076])
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato by adding the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make an emergency stop “on the basis of the determination results obtained by the road-condition determining unit” (see [0053]) and to come to a safe stop.
Furthermore, Nishimura teaches:
the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a straight stop as a first level type (avoiding collision with object by only the braking control without using the steering control, see at least [0058]) *Examiner sets forth if a steering is not actuated, the vehicle moves “straight.” This interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s Specification paragraph [00127] which recites “the straight stop is performed only in the longitudinal direction, and no longitudinal control is involved”
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato and the in lane stop taught by Nakatsuka by adding the braking only control taught by Nishimura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to bring a vehicle to a stop when a steering and braking control is not possible (see [0063]).
Additionally, Miller teaches:
wherein the execution time varies depending on the minimal risk maneuver (“a given vehicle will normally have a maximum possible time-to-stop corresponding to a distance at which the vehicle will coast to a stop at the stop location” see at least [0029], look up coating rate of vehicle for flat road in neutral coast, see at least [0032]) *Examiner sets forth that this maximum time is for a straight stop which is different from the predetermined time that is required by Nakatsuka for a lane change.
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, and the braking only control taught by Nishimura by adding the maximum time to stop taught by Miller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to optimize stopping distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the process identifies failed components of the vehicle, the components comprise at least one of a brake, steering, and a vehicle surroundings detection sensor (MRM occurs when failure in a system, such as an abnormality of the sensors, occurs, see at least [0062]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the type of the minimal risk maneuver based on whether a speed of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined speed (determining whether vehicle can perform lane change is dependent on vehicle speed relative to speed of surrounding vehicles, see at least [0057]-[0058]; minimum risk maneuver includes lane change and stopping in a shoulder, see at least [0071]-[0072] and Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
wherein the predetermined time is determined as a time required for the vehicle to stop in a flat land condition by using a neutral gear
However, Miller teaches:
wherein the predetermined time is determined as a time required for the vehicle to stop in a flat land condition by using a neutral gear (“a given vehicle will normally have a maximum possible time-to-stop corresponding to a distance at which the vehicle will coast to a stop at the stop location” see at least [0029], look up coating rate of vehicle for flat road in neutral coast, see at least [0032])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, and the braking only control taught by Nishimura by adding the maximum time to stop taught by Miller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to optimize stopping distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the processor does not cancel the minimal risk maneuver except when the minimal risk maneuver is completed and the vehicle becomes a minimal risk condition (MRM is completed with vehicle speed zero, see at least [0107] and reference number 130 on Fig. 5) or when an authorized driver intervenes an operation of the vehicle (when MRM is in operation, driver operation overrides the MRM and shifts to manual driving, see at least [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Sato discloses:
A method for operating an autonomous vehicle (vehicle 1 equipped with driving control system for automated driving, see at least [0030]), the method comprising: a first step of generating a request for a minimal risk maneuver (when operator takeover does not occur, minimal risk maneuver is activated, see at least [0063]);
a second step of determining a failure state of the vehicle (determine whether there is a failure or fault, see at least [0084]);
a third step of determining a type of the minimal risk maneuver according to the failure state of the vehicle, the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising an out-of-lane stop as a third level type (evacuation to a road shoulder, see at least [0062]; if failure flag is set and operator does not take over, minimal risk maneuver (MRM) is activated, see at least [0089]); and
a fourth step of performing the minimal risk maneuver according to the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver (if lane change can be performed, automated lane change is performed, see at least [0100]).
Sato does not explicitly disclose:
the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a straight stop as a first level type, a current lane stop as a second level type
performing transition from a current determined type of the minimal risk maneuver to a level type of the minimal risk maneuver lower than the current determined type, based on that the current determined type is not completed within a predetermined execution time
wherein the execution time varies depending on the minimal risk maneuver
However, Nakatsuka teaches:
the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a current lane stop (see Fig. 4 vehicle stopped in current lane)
performing transition from a current determined type of the minimal risk maneuver to a level type of the minimal risk maneuver lower than the current determined type, based on that the current determined type is not completed within a predetermined execution time (if it is determined that lane change cannot be made in a predetermined time because a nearby vehicle prevents a lane change, the controller 15 does not cause lane change to be made an causes the vehicle to be pulled over to median strip and stopped, see at least [0076])
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato by adding the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make an emergency stop “on the basis of the determination results obtained by the road-condition determining unit” (see [0053]) and to come to a safe stop.
Furthermore, Nishimura teaches:
the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprising a straight stop (avoiding collision with object by only the braking control without using the steering control, see at least [0058]) *Examiner sets forth if a steering is not actuated, the vehicle moves “straight.” This interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s Specification paragraph [00127] which recites “the straight stop is performed only in the longitudinal direction, and no longitudinal control is involved”
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato and the in lane stop taught by Nakatsuka by adding the braking only control taught by Nishimura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to bring a vehicle to a stop when a steering and braking control is not possible (see [0063]).
Additionally, Miller teaches:
wherein the execution time varies depending on the minimal risk maneuver (“a given vehicle will normally have a maximum possible time-to-stop corresponding to a distance at which the vehicle will coast to a stop at the stop location” see at least [0029], look up coating rate of vehicle for flat road in neutral coast, see at least [0032]) *Examiner sets forth that this maximum time is for a straight stop which is different from the predetermined time that is required by Nakatsuka for a lane change.
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, and the braking only control taught by Nishimura by adding the maximum time to stop taught by Miller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to optimize stopping distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the second step comprises monitoring a state of each of components of the vehicle in real time and identifying failed components (constantly determines whether there is a failure or fault in the external sensor, controllers, internal sensor, engine, and the like, see at least [0084]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the third step comprises determining the type of the minimal risk maneuver based on whether a speed of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined speed (determining whether vehicle can perform lane change is dependent on vehicle speed relative to speed of surrounding vehicles, see at least [0057]-[0058]), and
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
wherein the predetermined time is determined as a time required for the vehicle to stop in a flat land condition by using a neutral gear
However, Miller teaches:
wherein the predetermined time is determined as a time required for the vehicle to stop in a flat land condition by using a neutral gear (“a given vehicle will normally have a maximum possible time-to-stop corresponding to a distance at which the vehicle will coast to a stop at the stop location” see at least [0029], look up coating rate of vehicle for flat road in neutral coast, see at least [0032])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, and the braking only control taught by Nishimura by adding the maximum time to stop taught by Miller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to optimize stopping distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
maintaining the minimal risk maneuver except when the minimal risk maneuver is completed and the vehicle becomes a minimal risk condition (MRM is completed with vehicle speed zero, see at least [0107] and reference number 130 on Fig. 5) or when an authorized driver intervenes an operation of the vehicle (when MRM is in operation, driver operation overrides the MRM and shifts to manual driving, see at least [0069]).
Claims 4-5, 9, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Kagerer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0269039 A1; hereinafter Kagerer).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
when it is not possible to detect an object around the vehicle, the processor determines the current lane stop as the type of the minimal risk maneuver
However, Kagerer teaches:
when it is not possible to detect an object around the vehicle, the processor determines the current lane stop as the type of the minimal risk maneuver (surrounding sensor system determines whether an emergency stop lane is present next to the vehicle, if there is no lane next to current traffic lane, the vehicle is brought to emergency stop without a lane change, see at least [0058]-[0059] and Fig. 3; immediate emergency stop is carried out when driver is absent) *Examiner sets forth the “object” is an adjacent lane
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the emergency stop in lane when object is not detected as taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to stop even when “there is no suitable lane next to the vehicle upon which the vehicle can be safely brought to a standstill” (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
when it is determined that the vehicle is out of an operational design domain, the processor determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver
However, Kagerer teaches:
when it is determined that the vehicle is out of an operational design domain, the processor determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver (determine vehicle is on a breakdown lane, an emergency stop is carried out and vehicle is brought to a standstill, see at least [0062] and Fig. 3) *Examiner sets forth a breakdown lane is not a driving lane and thus outside of “an operation design domain”
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the emergency stop taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so a vehicle can be brought to and stopped in a breakdown lane (see [0062]) for safe stopping.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the processor provides an alarm to an inside and outside of the vehicle when an occupant is in the vehicle (driver is notified of automated lane change function stop, see at least [0085]), provides an alarm to the outside of the vehicle (notify surrounding vehicles by outward HMI or the like that vehicle is decelerating by the MRM, see at least [0103]), and initiates a brake control after a designated period of time elapses from providing the alarm to the outside of the vehicle (MRM is activated if takeover has not been performed after an elapsed time t2, see at least [0087]-[0089] and Fig. 4, wherein MRM includes control for deceleration and stop by automatic braking, see at least [0062]), and
wherein the alarm comprises at least one of hazard warning light blink and information on the minimal risk maneuver (hazard lamps are made to blink, see at least [0106]).
Sato does not explicitly disclose:
provide an alarm when no occupant is in the vehicle
However, Kagerer teaches:
provides an alarm to the outside of the vehicle when no occupant is in the vehicle (when there is suspicion that the driver is absent, stop the vehicle with optional light signaling such as flashing warning lights, see at least [0029])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the flashing warning lights taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to prevent the driver who is located, for example, on the roadway behind the vehicle, from being injured by traffic traveling behind” (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the third step comprises determining the current lane stop as the type of the minimal risk maneuver when it is not possible to detect an object around the vehicle
However, Kagerer teaches:
the third step comprises determining the current lane stop as the type of the minimal risk maneuver when it is not possible to detect an object around the vehicle (surrounding sensor system determines whether an emergency stop lane is present next to the vehicle, if there is no lane next to current traffic lane, the vehicle is brought to emergency stop without a lane change, see at least [0058]-[0059] and Fig. 3) *Examiner sets forth the “object” is an adjacent lane
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the emergency stop in lane taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to stop even when “there is no suitable lane next to the vehicle upon which the vehicle can be safely brought to a standstill” (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the third step comprises determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that the vehicle is out of an operational design domain
However, Kagerer teaches:
the third step comprises determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that the vehicle is out of an operational design domain (determine vehicle is on a breakdown lane, an emergency stop is carried out and vehicle is brought to a standstill, see at least [0062] and Fig. 3) *Examiner sets forth a breakdown lane is not a driving lane and thus outside of “an operation design domain”
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the emergency stop taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so a vehicle can be brought to and stopped in a breakdown lane (see [0062]) for safe stopping.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
providing an alarm to an inside and outside of the vehicle when an occupant is in the vehicle (driver is notified of automated lane change function stop, see at least [0085]), providing an alarm to the outside of the vehicle (notify surrounding vehicles by outward HMI or the like that vehicle is decelerating by the MRM, see at least [0103]), and initiating a brake control after a designated period of time elapses from providing the alarm to the outside of the vehicle (MRM is activated if takeover has not been performed after an elapsed time t2, see at least [0087]-[0089] and Fig. 4, wherein MRM includes control for deceleration and stop by automatic braking, see at least [0062]), and
wherein the alarm comprises at least one of hazard warning light blink and information on the minimal risk maneuver (hazard lamps are made to blink, see at least [0106]).
Sato does not explicitly disclose:
providing an alarm when no occupant is in the vehicle
However, Kagerer teaches:
providing an alarm to the outside of the vehicle when no occupant is in the vehicle (when there is suspicion that the driver is absent, stop the vehicle with optional light signaling such as flashing warning lights, see at least [0029])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the flashing warning lights taught by Kagerer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to prevent the driver who is located, for example, on the roadway behind the vehicle, from being injured by traffic traveling behind” (see [0029]).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Joyce et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0297565 A1; hereinafter Joyce).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processor calculates a severity of the state of the vehicle based on at least one of the number of failed parts of the vehicle, a position of the failed parts, and a type of the failed parts, when there is the request for the minimal risk maneuver, determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver when the calculated severity exceeds a predetermined level, performs a diagnosis of the vehicle when the calculated severity does not exceed the predetermined level, and determines whether the vehicle performs the autonomous driving or manual driving based on a result obtained by performing the diagnosis.
However, Joyce teaches:
the processor calculates a severity of the state of the vehicle based on at least one of the number of failed parts of the vehicle, a position of the failed parts, and a type of the failed parts, when there is the request for the minimal risk maneuver (computer 12 analyzes the system fault to determine a severity threshold or level, determine one or more vehicle 8 systems are operating outside of acceptable parameters, see at least [0040], [0026], Table 1, and Table 2),
determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver when the calculated severity exceeds a predetermined level (based upon severity threshold, autonomous vehicle 8 operation will cease such as bringing vehicle to park, see at least [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 2), performs a diagnosis of the vehicle when the calculated severity does not exceed the predetermined level (determine steering motor is overheating, see at least [0040] and [0027), and determines whether the vehicle performs the autonomous driving or manual driving based on a result obtained by performing the diagnosis (when a failure of vehicle 8 operation is determined, determine occupant status, see at least [0043])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the severity threshold taught by Joyce with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “hazard identification allows determining a control measure to be established to prevent or control this hazard” (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above but does not teach:
calculating a severity of the state of the vehicle based on at least one of a number of failed parts of the vehicle, a position of the failed parts, and a type of the failed parts, when there is the request for the minimal risk maneuver; determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver when the calculated severity exceeds a predetermined level; performing a diagnosis of the vehicle when the calculated severity does not exceed the predetermined level; and determining whether the vehicle performs the autonomous driving or manual driving based on a result obtained by performing the diagnosis
However, Joyce teaches:
calculating a severity of the state of the vehicle based on at least one of a number of failed parts of the vehicle, a position of the failed parts, and a type of the failed parts, when there is the request for the minimal risk maneuver (computer 12 analyzes the system fault to determine a severity threshold or level, determine one or more vehicle 8 systems are operating outside of acceptable parameters, see at least [0040], [0026], Table 1, and Table 2);
determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver when the calculated severity exceeds a predetermined level (based upon severity threshold, autonomous vehicle 8 operation will cease such as bringing vehicle to park, see at least [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 2);
performing a diagnosis of the vehicle when the calculated severity does not exceed the predetermined level (determine steering motor is overheating, see at least [0040] and [0027); and
determining whether the vehicle performs the autonomous driving or manual driving based on a result obtained by performing the diagnosis (when a failure of vehicle 8 operation is determined, determine occupant status, see at least [0043])
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 minimal risk driving control system disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the severity threshold taught by Joyce with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “hazard identification allows determining a control measure to be established to prevent or control this hazard” (see [0027]).
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Otake (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0037216 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate at a deceleration lower than a predetermined deceleration and to stop (decelerate and stop when MRM is activated, see at least [0065]; decelerate to a minimum speed of highway, see at last [0103]) *Examiner sets forth this would be less than a maximum braking, and performs a stop state management after the vehicle stops (hazard lamps are made to blink after stopping, see at least [0106])
Sato does not disclose:
wherein the predetermined deceleration is a constant value regardless of the type of the minimal risk maneuver
However, Otake teaches:
the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate at a deceleration lower than a predetermined deceleration and to stop (decelerate at target deceleration and stop, see at least [0020] and steps S20 and S22 of Fig. 5, deceleration is a gentle deceleration, see at least [0138]) *Examiner sets forth gentle deceleration is lower deceleration than a maximum deceleration
wherein the predetermined deceleration is a constant value regardless of the type of the minimal risk maneuver (decelerate the vehicle at a constant target deceleration, see at least [0126])
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the constant deceleration taught by Otake with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the vehicle can be stopped to secure safety” (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Sato, Nakatsuka, Nishimura, and Miller teaches the elements above and Sato further discloses:
controlling the vehicle to decelerate at a deceleration lower than a predetermined deceleration and to stop (decelerate and stop when MRM is activated, see at least [0065]; decelerate to a minimum speed of highway, see at last [0103]) *Examiner sets forth this would be less than a maximum braking, wherein the method further comprises a fifth step of performing a stop state management after the vehicle stops (hazard lamps are made to blink after stopping, see at least [0106])
Sato does not disclose:
wherein the predetermined deceleration is a constant value regardless of the type of the minimal risk maneuver
However, Otake teaches:
the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate at a deceleration lower than a predetermined deceleration and to stop (decelerate at target deceleration and stop, see at least [0020] and steps S20 and S22 of Fig. 5, deceleration is a gentle deceleration, see at least [0138]) *Examiner sets forth gentle deceleration is lower deceleration than a maximum deceleration
wherein the predetermined deceleration is a constant value regardless of the type of the minimal risk maneuver (decelerate the vehicle at a constant target deceleration, see at least [0126])
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 lane change minimal risk maneuver disclosed by Sato, the predetermined time to make a lane change taught by Nakatsuka, the braking only control taught by Nishimura, and the maximum time to stop taught by Miller by adding the constant deceleration taught by Otake with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the vehicle can be stopped to secure safety” (see [0020]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662