DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are pending in this application. The list of claims examined in this office action comprises the list included in the claim set filed 01/27/2026, in which:
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 and 13 has/have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 and 19 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 has/have been filed as previously presented.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 16-18 has/have been filed as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 01/27/2026; Applicant's “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15 and 19, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art, as mapped below in the Non-Final Office Action, and the previous remarks based on the previous claim set and mapping is now rendered moot. As a result, the original rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 has/have been withdrawn (the rejections of claims 2 and 12 are withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims in the most recently filed claim set).
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Office Action
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 11, claim 11 recites a typo of the term a/the “forth step” multiple times; however, these instances should instead recite a/the “fourth step.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular claim 1 states: “wherein the processor generates a request for the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that there is an abnormality in at least one of the states of the vehicle.”
However, the Applicant’s specification does not disclose any recitations of term “abnormality” in at least one state of vehicle. Paragraphs 0073-0079 recite determining a minimal risk maneuver in view of a determination that at least one component of the vehicle has failed and therefore has left the vehicle in a “failed state.” However the terms “abnormal” and “failure” are not consistent with one another due to the known differences in their definition in the art. In particular, an abnormality is something “deviating from the normal or average,” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal), while a failure means: “an abrupt cessation of normal functioning” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/failure) In view of this, the Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s specification does not clearly demonstrate that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention by effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-10 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependency on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Examiner’s Note: In order to rectify the above identified written description issues identified; the Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to instead recite: “wherein the processor generates a request for the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that the vehicle enters a failure state due to an identified failure in at least one vehicle component
The above amendment is exemplary in nature in order to demonstrate how the Applicant may amend the claim limitations such that they are more consistent with the Applicant’s specification thereby remedying the written description issues identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeder et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0291560 A1), referenced as Schroeder moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Schroeder discloses:
“A vehicle for performing a minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle comprising: a sensor which senses an environment around the vehicle and generates data related to the environment” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses a system/method for automatically controlling a vehicle by guiding it to a safe state selected from a plurality of safe states based on a determination that a particular vehicle system is not functioning correctly due to an error. The disclosed guiding of a vehicle to a safe state selected from a plurality of safe states has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "performing a minimal risk maneuver." Schroeder further discloses that the vehicle is outfitted with a plurality of sensors for observing the vehicle's driving environment; ¶: 0009, 0019-0021, 0023-0025];
“a processor which monitors states of the vehicle to generate data related to the states of the vehicle, and controls autonomous driving of the vehicle” [Schroeder; "With regard to the hardware availability, it should be noted that, for example, the hardware may be one or more control devices in the vehicle. Examples for such control devices are as follows: a central control device on which a setpoint trajectory is calculated or determined, based on which, an actual trajectory of the vehicle is regulated, a braking-system control device, a steering-system control device, a control device of a monitoring function and all further control devices installed in the vehicle. That is, the safe state is selected from the plurality of safe states depending upon which of the aforementioned control devices has an error or has failed (i.e., is or is not available);" ¶: 0026;
"A computer readable medium having computer program, which is executable by a processor;" Claim 18; See also: ¶: 0018, 0027, 0028, 0067];
“and a controller which controls operations of the vehicle according to the control of the processor” [Schroeder; "With regard to the hardware availability, it should be noted that, for example, the hardware may be one or more control devices in the vehicle. Examples for such control devices are as follows: a central control device on which a setpoint trajectory is calculated or determined, based on which, an actual trajectory of the vehicle is regulated, a braking-system control device, a steering-system control device, a control device of a monitoring function and all further control devices installed in the vehicle. That is, the safe state is selected from the plurality of safe states depending upon which of the aforementioned control devices has an error or has failed (i.e., is or is not available);" ¶: 0026;
"A computer readable medium having computer program, which is executable by a processor;" Claim 18; See also: ¶: 0018, 0027, 0028, 0067];
“wherein the processor generates a request for the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that there is an abnormality in at least one of the states of the vehicle, determines any one of a plurality of types as a minimal risk maneuver type based on the states of the vehicle, and controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with contents of the minimal risk maneuver type” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Schroeder discloses the following control steps: 1) determining an error is detected during fully automated driving(denoted 101 and 103 in Fig. 1); 2) selecting a safe state from the plurality of safe states based on the type of error that occurs(denoted 105 in Fig. 1); and 3) guiding the vehicle in a fully automated fashion into the selected safe state(denoted 107 in Fig. 1). Step 1 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "wherein the processor generates a request for the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that there is an abnormality in at least one of the states of the vehicle." Step 2 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determines any one of a plurality of types as a minimal risk maneuver type based on the states of the vehicle." Step 3 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "and controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with contents of the minimal risk maneuver type;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0047-0049];
“wherein the plurality of types comprise a straight stop and a current lane stop” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses the plurality of safe states that the system may select from when determining how to respond to the determined error(s). In particular Schroeder discloses a straightline braking operation to bring the vehicle to a standstill in the roadway regardless of lane positioning(denoted 315 in Fig. 3 and further explained in ¶: 0085 and 0086), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "straight stop." Schroeder further discloses a standstill in the vehicles own current lane(denoted 309 in Fig. 3), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "current lane stop;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0068-0072, 0078-0086];
“wherein the processor determines the straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when steering of the vehicle is impossible, and wherein during the straight stop the controller controls the vehicle to straight stop outside of a current lane due to the impossibility of the steering of the vehicle” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses implementing straightline braking in order to bring the vehicle to a standstill in the roadway regardless of lane positioning, as this fallback is implemented only when both the vehicle's steering and electronic stability program(ESP) have failed, thereby making it impossible to steer the vehicle. As a result, the system implements redundant braking to bring the vehicle to a standstill as quickly as possible without regard for lane markings to resolve this emergency scenario; Fig. 3; ¶: 0041, 0068-0072, 0078-0086];
“and during the current lane stop the controller controls the vehicle to stop in the current lane using the steering of the vehicle” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses implementing controlling the vehicle to brake while maintaining its current traveling lane as the selected safe state when the vehicle's ESP fails, but steering is still functional; Fig. 3; ¶: 0034, 0068-0072, 0078-0086].
With respect to claim 4, Schroeder discloses: “The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor determines the current lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when the steering of the vehicle is possible and next lane detection is impossible” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses: an instance in which, in case of a sensor failure, i.e. making it impossible for the vehicle to detect lane markings, bringing the vehicle to a stop in its current travel lane using a combination of automated steering and braking, which are both fully functional in the disclosed instance; ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0078, 0079].
With respect to claim 5, Schroeder discloses: “The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the plurality of types further comprise a lane change plus stop, and wherein the processor determines an out-of-lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when the steering of the vehicle is possible and next lane detection is possible” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses performing an active lane change to the emergency stopping area when the vehicle is still completely functional, but observes that the driver is experiencing a health problem for example. As the disclosed control step is contingent on the vehicle being fully functional, the above disclosure has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determines an out-of-lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when the steering of the vehicle is possible and next lane detection is possible;" ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0051, 0052, 0078, 0079].
With respect to claim 11, Schroeder discloses:
“A method for operating a vehicle for performing a minimal risk maneuver, the method comprising:” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses a system/method for automatically controlling a vehicle by guiding it to a safe state selected from a plurality of safe states based on a determination that a particular vehicle system is not functioning correctly due to an error. The disclosed guiding of a vehicle to a safe state selected from a plurality of safe states has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "performing a minimal risk maneuver;" ¶: 0009, 0019-0021, 0023-0025];
“a first step of generating a request for the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle; a second step of monitoring a state of the vehicle; a third step of determining any one of a plurality of types as a minimal risk maneuver type based on the state of the vehicle; and a forth step of performing the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with contents of the minimal risk maneuver type” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Schroeder discloses the following control steps: 1) determining an error is detected during fully automated driving(denoted 101 and 103 in Fig. 1); 2) selecting a safe state from the plurality of safe states based on the type of error that occurs(denoted 105 in Fig. 1); and 3) guiding the vehicle in a fully automated fashion into the selected safe state(denoted 107 in Fig. 1). Step 1 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a first step of generating a request for the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle;" and "a second step of monitoring a state of the vehicle." Step 2 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a third step of determining any one of a plurality of types as a minimal risk maneuver type based on the state of the vehicle." Step 3 above has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a fourth step of performing the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with contents of the minimal risk maneuver type;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0047-0049];
“wherein the plurality of types comprise a straight stop and a current lane stop” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses the plurality of safe states that the system may select from when determining how to respond to the determined error(s). In particular Schroeder discloses a straightline braking operation to bring the vehicle to a standstill in the roadway regardless of lane positioning(denoted 315 in Fig. 3 and further explained in ¶: 0085 and 0086), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "straight stop." Schroeder further discloses a standstill in the vehicles own current lane(denoted 309 in Fig. 3), which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "current lane stop;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0068-0072, 0078-0086];
wherein the third step comprises determining the straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when steering of the vehicle is impossible, and wherein during the straight stop the fourth step comprises controlling the vehicle to straight stop outside of a current lane due to the impossibility of the steering of the vehicle,“” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses implementing straightline braking in order to bring the vehicle to a standstill in the roadway regardless of lane positioning, as this fallback is implemented only when both the vehicle's steering and electronic stability program(ESP) have failed, thereby making it impossible to steer the vehicle. As a result, the system implements redundant braking to bring the vehicle to a standstill as quickly as possible without regard for lane markings to resolve this emergency scenario; Fig. 3; ¶: 0041, 0068-0072, 0078-0086];
“and during the current lane stop the fourth step comprises controlling the vehicle to stop in the current lane using the steering of the vehicle” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses implementing controlling the vehicle to brake while maintaining its current traveling lane as the selected safe state when the vehicle's ESP fails, but steering is still functional; Fig. 3; ¶: 0034, 0068-0072, 0078-0086].
With respect to claim 14, Schroeder discloses: “The method of claim 11, wherein the third step comprises determining the current lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when the steering of the vehicle is possible and next lane detection is impossible.” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses: an instance in which, in case of a sensor failure, i.e. making it impossible for the vehicle to detect lane markings, bringing the vehicle to a stop in its current travel lane using a combination of automated steering and braking, which are both fully functional in the disclosed instance; ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0078, 0079].
With respect to claim 15, Schroeder discloses: “” [Schroeder; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Schroeder discloses performing an active lane change to the emergency stopping area when the vehicle is still completely functional, but observes that the driver is experiencing a health problem for example. As the disclosed control step is contingent on the vehicle being fully functional, the above disclosure has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "determines an out-of-lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when the steering of the vehicle is possible and next lane detection is possible;" ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0051, 0052, 0078, 0079].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of You et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0142244 A1), referenced as You moving forward.
With respect to claim 6, while Schroeder discloses: determining a safe state to which to automatically guide a vehicle based on observed errors in the various vehicle systems including an out-of-lane stop [Schroeder; ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0051, 0052, 0078, 0079], Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the out-of-lane stop comprises a lane change plus stop in traffic lane, a shoulder stop, and a parking lane stop.”
You, which is in the same field of invention of vehicle control systems/methods, teaches: “wherein the out-of-lane stop comprises a lane change plus stop in traffic lane, a shoulder stop, and a parking lane stop” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 7, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the sensor is further configured to provide information on a potential stopping area to the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the minimal risk maneuver type based on the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “wherein the sensor is further configured to provide information on a potential stopping area to the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the minimal risk maneuver type based on the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 8, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the processor determines the lane change plus stop in traffic lane as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “wherein the processor determines the lane change plus stop in traffic lane as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 9, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the processor determines the shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no parking space among the potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area, and when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a shoulder.”
You teaches: “wherein the processor determines the shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no parking space among the potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area, and when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a shoulder” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 10 Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the processor determines the parking lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “wherein the processor determines the parking lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 16, while Schroeder discloses: determining a safe state to which to automatically guide a vehicle based on observed errors in the various vehicle systems including an out-of-lane stop [Schroeder; ¶: 0024-0026, 0036-0041, 0051, 0052, 0078, 0079], Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the out-of-lane stop comprises a lane change plus stop in traffic lane, a shoulder stop, and a parking lane stop.”
You teaches: “wherein the out-of-lane stop comprises a lane change plus stop in traffic lane, a shoulder stop, and a parking lane stop” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 17 Schroeder does not specifically state: “further comprising generating information on a potential stopping area, wherein the third step comprises determining the minimal risk maneuver type based on the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “further comprising generating information on a potential stopping area, wherein the third step comprises determining the minimal risk maneuver type based on the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 18, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the third step further comprises determining the lane change plus stop in traffic lane as the minimal risk maneuver type when itis determined that there is no potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “wherein the third step further comprises determining the lane change plus stop in traffic lane as the minimal risk maneuver type when itis determined that there is no potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 19, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the third step further comprises determining the parking lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a parking space among the potential stopping area.”
You teaches: “wherein the third step further comprises determining the parking lane stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a parking space among the potential stopping area” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
With respect to claim 20, Schroeder does not specifically state: “wherein the third step comprises determining the shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no parking space among the potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area, and when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a shoulder.”
You teaches: “wherein the third step comprises determining the shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type when it is determined that there is no parking space among the potential stopping area or the vehicle is not able to move to the parking space among the potential stopping area, and when it is determined that the vehicle is able to move to a shoulder” [You; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, You teaches a system and method for controlling a vehicle based on observed abnormalities. You further discloses prioritizing the control response comprising at least a plurality of responses depending on observations of the vehicle's environment. The control responses are prioritized as follows: 1) pulling the vehicle over to an emergency parking lot, 2) when an emergency parking lot is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road, 3) when a shoulder of the road is not available, pulling the vehicle over to the outermost travel lane, 4) when an outermost travel lane is not available, pulling over the vehicle near a fixed obstacle, and 5) when a fixed obstacle is unavailable, stopping the vehicle in the current lane; Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0019-0033; Claim 8;].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components as disclosed by Schroeder to incorporate the teachings regarding determining the appropriate control maneuver in response to the observed abnormalities/failures as taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these two inventions, the outcome is a control system/method for controlling vehicle based on observed errors in the vehicle’s sensors and/or other operating components that is more robust in its ability to adaptively manage a driver's condition when failure occurs in the autonomous navigation system to prevent traffic accidents [You; ¶: 0001-0009].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Odate (United States Patent Publication 2019/0061811 A1) discloses: A driving support device may include, but is not limited to: a plurality of sensors is configured to detect state quantities relating to steering of a vehicle; a determiner is configured to determine whether each of the plurality of sensors is normal or abnormal; and a controller controlling execution of driving support functions for supporting a driving operation for the vehicle, in which the controller is configured to determine a control state of an executable driving support function on the basis of a result of the determination of the determiner.
HAN et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0126872 A1) discloses: An example method for safely controlling a vehicle includes selecting, based on a first control command from a first vehicle control unit, an operating mode of the vehicle, and transmitting, based on the selecting, the operating mode to an autonomous driving system, wherein the first control command is generated based on input from a first plurality of sensors, and wherein the operating mode corresponds to one of (a) a default operating mode, (b) a minimal risk condition mode of a first type that configures the vehicle to pull over to a nearest pre-designated safety location, (c) a minimal risk condition mode of a second type that configures the vehicle to immediately stop in a current lane, or (d) a minimal risk condition mode of a third type that configures the vehicle to come to a gentle stop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666