Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 3/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-18 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kato in view of Yang does not teach: determine an entity of a control authority for the minimal risk maneuver based on characteristics of an event which requests the minimal risk maneuver, wherein, when the entity of the control authority is determined to be the vehicle, the processor controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver without transferring the control authority to a driver even though the driver intervenes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yang (FIG. 5, annotated) teaches such a logic path in the flowchart/algorithm as a possibility. Here, under autonomous control the driver intervenes. It is determined that the control authority is the vehicle and the intervention is ignored while the vehicle continues to function autonomously and perform a MRM.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200307646A1 Kato et al ("Kato", previously cited) in view of US20190317495A1 Yang et al ("Yang").
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kato teaches the limitations of the vehicle and method:
An autonomous vehicle (Kato abstract, [0030]) comprising: a sensor (Kato [0030]) which senses an environment around the vehicle and generates data related to the environment; a processor which monitors a state of the vehicle to generate data related to the state of the vehicle(Kato at least [0037); and a controller which controls operations of the vehicle according to the control of the processor (Kato [0030]), wherein the processor controls autonomous driving of the vehicle, controls the controller to perform a minimal risk maneuver according to a request for the minimal risk maneuver, (Kato at least the abstract: “vehicle control system…autonomous driving…stopping mode when an intervention detection unit…acceptance of a driving intervention request”, [0054]: “vehicle position recognition unit”)
Kato does not disclose:
determine an entity of a control authority for the minimal risk maneuver based on characteristics of an event which requests the minimal risk maneuver, wherein, when the entity of the control authority is determined to be the vehicle, the processor controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver without transferring the control authority to a driver even though the driver intervenes.
Yang teaches the aforementioned limitations (Yang at least the abstract: “determine whether to transfer a control authority based on the state information and a reliability of the control input, and to transfer the control authority to the driver when the control authority is determined to transfer”, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to “safely hand over control authority to a driver in the situation where the safety of the driver is ensured, by determining whether to hand over the control authority in consideration of a state of the driver and the reliability of a control input by the driver” (Yang [0086]).
As per claims 2 and 10, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
the processor controls the controller to perform a stop state management of the vehicle after completing the minimal risk maneuver. (Kato at least FIG. 3 ST22)
As per claims 3 and 11, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
the processor stops performing the stop state management of the vehicle when the driver intervenes while the stop state management is being performed, and gives the control authority of the vehicle to the driver. (Kato at least FIG. 3 ST24).
As per claims 4 and 12, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
the processor generates the request for the minimal risk maneuver when it is determined that there is an abnormality in at least one of a surrounding of the vehicle and the state of the vehicle. (Kato at least [0083]: “control unit executes the stop process when the driver has become unable to drive the vehicle… or when a failure in the vehicle control system is detected”)
As per claims 5 and 13, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
the processor receives the request for the minimal risk maneuver from the driver (Kato at least [0008-0009]: “notification interface…intervention request issued by the control unit to a driver…intervention detection unit…acceptance of the driving intervention request by the driver”) *here the driver (outside the processor) can request the intervention (minimal risk maneuver)
As per claims 6 and 14, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
the processor requests the driver to intervene, and wherein, when the driver does not intervene within a predetermined time after requesting the intervention, the processor generates the request for the minimal risk maneuver. (Kato at least [0012]: “driver is encouraged to accept the driving request in a timely fashion”, [0084]: “handover…prescribed time period”, FIG. 3 ST13) *Kato provides for a time period to allow for the driver to acknowledge the request before automatically intervening.
As per claims 7 and 15, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato additionally teaches:
when the driver intervenes within the predetermined time after requesting the intervention, the processor gives the control authority of the vehicle to the driver. (Kato at least [0084], FIG. 3 ST13)
As per claims 17 and 18, Kato in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Kato does not disclose:
the processor determines the entity of the control authority for the minimal risk maneuver as the driver when the request for the minimal risk maneuver is generated by the driver, and wherein the processor determines the entity of the control authority for the minimal risk maneuver as the vehicle when the request for the minimal risk maneuver is generated by the vehicle.
Yang teaches the aforementioned limitations (Yang at least [0045-0046]: “When the driver is conscious and when the reliability of the control input is high, the control circuit 160 may determine to hand over the control authority. … when a probability of collision is low…
When the driver is unconscious or when the reliability of the control input is low, the control circuit 160 may prohibit the control authority transition. … the control circuit 160 may perform autonomous control according to a predetermined minimum risk maneuver”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights