DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the remarks filed 8/29/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 8/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 16-18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipating by Song Moon Hyung et al. KR 2024/0090065 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference and newly found prior art reference(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As stated in the previous office action, the phrase “the processor obtains a detectable distance of the sensor” renders the claim indefinite. The wording the detectable distance of the sensor is ambiguous (emphasis added). Since the detectable distance could be interpreted as a property of the sensor itself, rather than the distance between the sensor and an external object. Therefore, to accurately describe the measurement from the sensor to an object, the claim should recite --the detectable distance from the sensor--. Thus, this subtle word change would improve the readability, accuracy and clarify that the processor obtains a detectable distance from the sensor. Support for such amend is in at least paragraph [0045], which states that the processor can receive data from the sensor.
The 112(b) rejection is being maintained.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for incorporating the error(s) of claim 1 through dependency. Therefore, for the purpose of compact prosecution the clams are reject below as best understood by the Examiner in view of the 35 USC § 112 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipating by Maus et al., US 2021/0294336 hereinafter “Maus”.
Claims 1 and 11 Maus, teaches 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 (sensor, item 68 in figs. 2 and at least taught in [0021], [0027], [0037]. While fig. 4 at least teaches the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) decision-making performance process.);
a processor which monitors a state of the vehicle to generate data related to the state of the vehicle, and controls autonomous driving of the vehicle ([0019] teaches that “computer 32 includes a processor”);
a controller which controls operations of the vehicle according to the control of the processor ([0022] teaches that “computer 32 includes a microprocessor-based computing device, e.g., an electronic controller or the like.”); and
wherein the processor obtains a detectable distance of the sensor ([0019] implies that the processor obtains a detectable distance from a sensor and reads on this element as such—“a computer 32 includes a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor. The instructions include…determine a distance limit based on the first anomalous condition; then select the minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 ranked best for the expected risk score 46 from the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 for which the respective distances 48 are below the distance limit…”),
determines any one of a plurality of types as a minimal risk maneuver type based on the detectable distance and a predetermined minimum detection distance when there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver (this element is best illustrated in fig. 2, while also taught in at least [0019] as such—“…then select the minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 ranked best for the expected risk score 46 from the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 for which the respective distances 48 are below the distance limit….”), and
controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver in accordance with contents of the minimal risk maneuver type ([0019] teaches element as such—“…and then instruct the vehicle 30 to perform the selected minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40, 42, 44.).
Claims 2 and 12 Maus teaches the vehicle of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the plurality of types comprises:
a straight stop as a level 1 type; an in-lane stop as a level 2 type; a lane change plus stop in traffic lane as a level 3 type; a shoulder stop as a level 4 type; and a parking lane stop as a level 5 type, wherein at least two of the plurality of types have different minimum detection distances as a determination standard (fig. 2 illustrates the minimal risk maneuver and different distance while [0029]-[0036] further reads on this element), and
wherein the processor determines a type having a minimum detection distance smaller than the detectable distance as the minimal risk maneuver type ([0019] reads on this element as such—“…then select the minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 ranked best for the expected risk score 46 from the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 for which the respective distances 48 are below the distance limit”).
Claims 3 and 13 Maus teaches the vehicle of claim 2 and Maus further teaches, wherein, in the plurality of types, a higher-level type has a greater minimum detection distance as the determination standard (fig. 2 illustrates minimal risk maneuver based on distance).
Claims 4 and 14 Maus teaches the vehicle of claim 2 and Maus further teaches, wherein, in the plurality of types, a higher-level type has a smaller minimum detection distance as the determination standard (fig. 2 illustrates minimal risk maneuver based on distance).
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.
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maus in view of Yu, Jing, and Feng Luo. “Fallback strategy for level 4+ automated driving system.”, hereinafter “Jing Yu”.
Claims 5 and 15. Maus teaches the vehicle of claim1; however, Maus is silent on reciting the terms longitudinal distance and a lateral distance. Yet, Jing Yu teaches
wherein the minimal risk maneuver type is a straight stop, wherein the minimum detection distance comprises a longitudinal distance and a lateral distance, wherein a size of the longitudinal distance is as follows,
d
=
V
0
2
2
·
a
m
a
x
,
V
0
2
2
·
a
m
a
x
>
10
10
,
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
(where, V1 is a speed of the vehicle and
a
m
a
x
is a predetermined maximum deceleration of the vehicle), wherein a size of the lateral distance is a width of the vehicle, and wherein the processor controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the detectable distance and the minimum detection distance (On pg. 160, section C— Jing Yu teaches longitude dynamic model and lateral dynamic
model, which make longitude control and lateral control independent … least square circle fitting….”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jing Yu with the invention Maus because such combination will provide a driving safety feature to avoid collisions with other object.
Claims 6 and 16 Maus in view of Jing Yu the vehicle of claim 5 Maus further teaches, wherein, when the detectable distance is smaller than the minimum detection distance (fig. 2 illustrates minimal risk maneuver based on distance).
Claims 7 and 17 Maus in view of Jing Yu the vehicle of claim 6, Maus further teaches
wherein, when the detectable distance is greater than the minimum detection distance (fig. 2 illustrates minimal risk maneuver based on distance).
Claims 8 and 18 Maus teaches the vehicle of claim 1; however, Maus is silent on reciting the terms longitudinal distance and a lateral distance. Yet, Jing Yu teaches wherein the minimal risk maneuver type is an in-lane stop, wherein the minimum detection distance comprises a longitudinal distance and a lateral distance (p. 160, section C), and
wherein the processor controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the detectable distance and the minimum detection distance (p. 160, section C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jing Yu with the invention Maus because such combination will provide a driving safety feature to avoid collisions with other object.
Claims 9 and 19. Maus teaches the vehicle of claim 8 and braking system in [0031]-[0032]; however, Maus is silent of reciting the terms longitudinal distance and a lateral distance. Yet, Jing You teaches wherein a size of the longitudinal distance is as follows,
d
=
V
0
2
2
·
a
m
a
x
,
V
0
2
2
·
a
m
a
x
>
10
10
,
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
where,
V
0
is a speed of the vehicle and
a
m
a
x
is a predetermined maximum deceleration of the vehicle, wherein a size of the lateral distance is a width of a current lane in consideration of a predetermined curvature, and wherein, when the detectable distance is smaller than the minimum detection distance, the processor controls the controller to allow the vehicle to brake at the predetermined maximum deceleration (On pg. 160, section C— Jing Yu teaches “…fitting the curvature of the desired trajectory….”)
Claims 10 and 20. Maus in view of Jing Yu teaches the vehicle of claim 9 and Maus further, wherein, when the detectable distance is greater than the minimum detection distance ([0032] read on this element as such—“The braking force applied by the brake system 66 in the second minimal risk maneuver 38 can be a second preset braking force that is greater, e.g., approximately three times greater, than the first preset braking force. The minimal risk condition corresponding to the second minimal risk maneuver
38 is the vehicle 30 being stopped in a lane 74, 76. The second end location 54 is a location in the current lane 74 of travel at a distance from the present location 50 determined by the second preset braking force”),
the processor controls the controller to allow the vehicle to brake at a deceleration less than the maximum deceleration ([0007] reads on this element as such—“The system can thus choose a slower but potentially safer minimal risk maneuver wider certain circumstances or a quicker minimal risk maneuver under other circumstances. The response is also more customized by accounting for whether particular hazards are present and might interact with the selected minimal risk maneuver.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA D THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 - 5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/A.D.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661