DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the remarks filed 3/30/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On 8 of 13 through 10 of 13, Applicant alleges that:
“The Examiner has rejected claims 1-4 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2021/0294336 to Maus et al. (“Maus”), in view of “Fallback strategy for level 4+ Automated driving system” of Jing Yu et al. (“Jing Yu”).
Applicant respectfully submits that Maus, Jing Yu, taken individually or combined, fail to teach or suggest inventive features of the presently claimed invention including i) obtaining a detectable distance from the sensor, wherein the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object; and ii) determining 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, as is called for by claims 1 and 11. However, Maus fails to disclose such features….Jing Yu fails to account for these deficiencies of Maus because the Examiner cites only Mau, to support such features. See Office Action, page 5”. The Examiner disagrees.
In response:
Applicant is arguing the newly amended of “obtaining a detectable distance from the sensor, wherein the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object”. However, Maus clearly describes this newly amend language as reject below. Furthermore, the cited supportive sections of [0031]-[0038] and [0179] from the instant specification merely teach detecting an object using various sensors and when to control the brakes at a 1 MRM type, respectively. While figure 12 of the instant specification merely defines a detectable distance as an area. Lastly the phrase “the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object” is absent from the instant specification.
Maus clearly teaches “determining 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” see at least [0041] of Maus which reads as such on this limitation—“The computer 32 selects the first end location 52, the second end location 54, and the third end location 56 based on the distance needed to perform the respective minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40. The computer 32 selects the fourth end location 58 and fifth end location 60 based on a distance from the present location 50 of the vehicle 30 to the respective end location 58, 60 and based on a lack of hazards from the hazard list at the respective end location 58, 60, i.e., based on being at an eligible area 84 as determined in the block 415. For example, the computer 32 selects the fourth end location 58 to minimize a distance to travel from the present location 50 of the vehicle 30 to one of the eligible areas 84, i.e., the fourth end location 58 is a closest portion of the eligible areas 84.”
Examiner’s Note
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn, in light of the following amendment of “obtains a detectable [[of]] from the sensor…” to claim 1.
However, the newly added claim language of “…wherein the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object” has necessitated new ground of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 11 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. Both claims 1 and 11 recites “…wherein the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object.” The cited section of [0031]-[0038] and [0179] from the instant specification merely teaches detecting an object using various sensors and when to control the brakes at a 1 MRM type, while figure 12 of the instant specification defines a detectable distance as an area. Lastly the phrase “the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object” is not even recited in the instant specification. Thus, this newly claimed subject matter is not supported nor described in the application as originally filed. In other words, the instant application defines “the detectable distance” does not define “the detectable distance” as a distance between the sensor and an external object.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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, accurately describe the measurement from the sensor to an object, the claim should recite -- a detectable distance from the sensor of the vehicle-- see page 3 of the Office action dating 12/30/2025. Emphasis added. Support for such amend in the instant application is in [0045], which states that the processor can receive data from the sensor.
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 from the sensor, wherein the detectable distance is a distance between the sensor and an external object ([0037] teaches “As a general overview of the process 400, the computer 32 receives map data including hazards; receives data from the sensors 68; identifies eligible areas 84 for the fourth end location 58 and fifth end location 60; selects the end locations 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 from the map data; updates distances 48 to the end locations 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 on the list 34 of minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44; ranks the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 by expected risk score 46….” In other words, “vehicle computer can select from a number of minimal risk maneuvers to respond to an anomalous condition based on the nature of the anomalous condition as well as the urgency of the anomalous condition….accounting for whether particular hazards are present and might interact with the selected minimal risk maneuver”, see [0007]. Figure 4 which further illustrates this process of receiving the detected threat, receive sensor data and identifying a save harbor. Here the detected distance from the sensor on the vehicle at a present location to the detected hazard is being implied, see [0027]. Note [0027] also teaches that “[t]he sensors 68 may detect the external world, e.g., objects and/or characteristics of surroundings of the vehicle 30, such as other vehicles, road lane markings, traffic lights and/or signs, pedestrians, etc. For example, the sensors 68 may include radar sensors, scanning laser range finders, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) devices, and image processing sensors such as cameras. While figure 1 illustrates various detectable distance that includes the proper MRM to occur at a particular end point.” [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…” Thus, taken together the cited section reads on this element.),
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 (see 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 (see 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
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 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/ /RUSSELL FREJD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights