DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/29/2025, in which claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks that Ishioka in view of Tsuji fail to teach the amended limitations of the independent claims. Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that “Tsuji merely discloses…selecting a stop location having the lowest risk, according to determining a detailed stop position within the same MRM type (e.g., an in-lane stop or a shoulder stop).” Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that “Tsuji fails to disclose any higher-level control logic for evaluating a progress rate or degree of performance of a currently executing MRM, nor for determining whether to transition between different MRM types based on such evaluation results, as is presently claimed.” Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that “the presently claimed invention discloses determining whether to perform a stepwise transition between MRMs by comprehensively considering: a performance metric indicating a progress or completion degree of the currently executing MRM, and operational characteristics of another candidate MRM type to which a transition is contemplated.”
In response to applicant’s arguments that Ishioka in view of Tsuji fail to teach all elements of the amended independent claims, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims are amended to recite “wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type, based on a degree of performance of the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type, and maneuver contents of the second minimal risk maneuver type,” as previously recited in claims 7 and 17. The specification states that transition of the minimal risk maneuver type “may be determined in consideration of the current speed of the vehicle and/or external surrounding information,” and the minimal risk maneuver type may be changed due to a change in traffic conditions (instant application [00157]-[00158]). The specification also states the minimal risk maneuver can be transitioned based on whether or not a minimum risk condition is met, which includes the amount of risk of the vehicle (instant application [0064]-[0068]). Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation and supported by the instant application specification, “determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle…based on a degree of performance of the minimal risk of the vehicle” includes determining a minimal risk maneuver based on a risk associated with surrounding information and/or vehicle speed.
Tsuji teaches checking a vehicle speed to determine whether to begin a decelerating process or continue to a stopping process at a stop location (Tsuji [0162]-[0163], Fig. 3A). A dynamic evaluation is performed to identify any obstacles, and the stop location is determined based on the updated analysis of the road obstacles (Tsuji [0194]-[0196]). Tsuji also teaches that a vehicle minimal risk maneuver can be determined based on surrounding other vehicles and a stop in the road proving to be “impracticable” (Tsuji [0268]). Multiple locations can be assessed to determine collision risk associated with each stop location and vehicle speed (Tsuji [0269]-[273]). Further, changes to a stop location and evacuation path can be made based on a collision risk and changes in traffic flow (Tsuji [0257]). Therefore, Tsuji teaches “determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle…based on a degree of performance of the minimal risk of the vehicle” because a maneuver is determined based on risk and the maneuver is updated as the surrounding conditions and vehicle state changes.
In response to applicant's arguments that Tsuji fails to show “a progress rate” or “a progress or completion degree,” it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the specification does not clearly define “a degree of performance” as being related to a progress rate or completion degree. Rather, “a degree of performance” can be related to risk under its broadest reasonable interpretation supported by the instant application specification, as explained above.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Tsuji discloses selecting a stop location “within the same MRM type,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant defines a plurality of MRM types as including different stop locations (see at least claim 1, where an in-lane stop is “level 2 type” and a shoulder stop is “level 4 type”). Accordingly, a plurality of possible stop locations that can be completed are not considered to be “within the same MRM type,” based on how MRM types are defined by the applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, Tsuji discloses multiple MRM types because Tsuji selects a stop location from a plurality of possible stop locations including within a lane or road shoulder (Tsuji Fig. 12).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/31/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “when a speed of the vehicle is less than a predetermined speed while the second step is being performed, the third step comprises determining a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” and “when the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type has been performed at a level higher than a predetermined level and there is at least one vehicle around the vehicle, the processor determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type” are conditional limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations do not require the “determining a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” and “determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type” to be performed because it is not required for the speed of the vehicle to be less than a predetermined speed, performing a first minimal risk maneuver type at a level higher than a predetermined level, and at least one vehicle present around the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “when the degree of risk around the vehicle is reduced or the state of the vehicle is improved while the second step is being performed, the third step comprises determining a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” is a conditional limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the “determining a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” to be performed because it is not required for the degree of risk around the vehicle to be reduced or the state of the vehicle improved during the second step.
Regarding claim 14 , the limitation “when the degree of risk around the vehicle is increased or the state of the vehicle is degraded while the second step is being performed, the third step comprises determining the lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” is a conditional limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the “determining the lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” to be performed because it is not required for the degree of risk around the vehicle to be increased or the state of the vehicle degraded during the second step.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “when the speed of the vehicle is less than the predetermined speed while the second step is being performed, the third step comprises determining the level 1 type or the level 2 type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” is a conditional limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the “determining the level 1 type or the level 2 type as the second minimal risk maneuver type” to be performed because it is not required for the speed of the vehicle to be less than the predetermined speed during the second step.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “when the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type is performed at a level higher than a predetermined level, the fourth step comprises determining not to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type" is a conditional limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the “determining not to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type” to be performed because it is not required to perform the first minimal risk maneuver type at a level higher than a predetermined level.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7).See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “higher-level type” is being interpreted as a maneuver assigned with a higher numerical value compared to another maneuver. The phrase “lower-level type” is being interpreted as a maneuver assigned with a lower numerical value compared to another maneuver.
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, 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishioka et al., JP 2020163986 A, as evidenced by “JP2020163986A Translation” (hereinafter Ishioka), in view of Tsuji et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0229658 A1 (hereinafter Tsuji).
Regarding claim 1, Ishioka discloses a vehicle for performing a minimal risk maneuver (Ishioka [0029]), the vehicle comprising:
a sensor which senses an environment around the vehicle and generates data related to the environment (see at least Ishioka [0031]: “The outside world recognition device 6 is a device that detects an object or the like outside the vehicle. The outside world recognition device 6 includes sensors for detecting electromagnetic waves and light from the periphery of the vehicle to detect objects outside the vehicle, for example, a radar 17, a lidar 18, and an outside camera 19.”);
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 (see at least Ishioka [0052]: “In the present embodiment, when the control device 15 receives the execution instruction of the automatic driving in the automatic driving level changeover switch 13, the vehicle is based on the detection result of the outside world recognition device 6 and the position of the vehicle acquired by the navigation device 9.”);
a controller which controls operations of the vehicle according to the control of the processor (see at least Ishioka [0052]: “In the present embodiment, when the control device 15 receives the execution instruction of the automatic driving in the automatic driving level changeover switch 13, the vehicle is based on the detection result of the outside world recognition device 6 and the position of the vehicle acquired by the navigation device 9.”; [0045]: “The control device 15 is an electronic control unit (ECU) composed of a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like.”);
and a communication circuit which transmits and receives data to and from the outside (see at least Ishioka [0036]: “The communication device 8 mediates communication between the control device 15 and the navigation device 9 and peripheral vehicles and servers located outside the vehicle.”),
wherein the processor determines any one of a plurality of types as a first minimal risk maneuver type based on a degree of risk around the vehicle and the state of the vehicle, when there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver (see at least Ishioka [0086]: “When the vehicle state determination unit 51 determines that the outside world recognition device 6 for detecting the state of the lane 63 to be moved is functioning normally (Yes in ST14), the control device 15 detects the outside world recognition device 6. After confirming the safety according to the situation of other vehicles in the vicinity, the vehicle 61 is changed to the lane 63 to be moved (ST15).”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a first minimal risk maneuver includes a lane change; Ishioka [0075] discloses a request for the minimal risk maneuver because the process occurs when shifting from automatic operation mode to automatic stop mode),
controls the controller to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Ishioka [0088]: “When it is determined that the lane can be changed (Yes in ST16), the control device 15 moves after confirming the safety to the extent possible based on the situation of other vehicles in the vicinity detected by the outside world recognition device 6.”),
and determines any one other than the first minimal risk maneuver type among the plurality of types as a second minimal risk maneuver type, when at least one of the degree of risk around the vehicle and the state of the vehicle is changed while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed (see at least Ishioka [0088]: Ishioka discloses decreasing the lateral speed of the lane change “when some of the sensors in the outside world recognition device 6 that detects the situation of the lane 63 to be moved are not functioning normally” so that “the vehicle 61 slowly moves in the left-right direction in this way, even if the other vehicle that could not be detected is traveling in a position that hinders the lane change”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a second minimal risk maneuver includes decelerating the vehicle),
wherein the plurality of types comprises: an in-lane stop as a level 2 type (see at least Ishioka [0093]: “If it is determined in ST16 that the lane cannot be changed (No in ST16), the vehicle returns to ST12 and the stop position is changed. Here, as the stopped position after the change, a roadside zone, an emergency parking zone, or the like provided inside the traveling lane 62 is selected with priority over the traveling lane 62, and the traveling lane 62 is selected.”);
a lane change plus stop in traffic lane as a level 3 type (see at least Ishioka [0086]: “If the road has three or more lanes on each side, the control device 15 repeats the lane change until the vehicle 61 moves to the lane 63 closest to the stop position”; [0093]: “If it is determined in ST16 that the lane cannot be changed (No in ST16), the vehicle returns to ST12 and the stop position is changed. Here, as the stopped position after the change, a roadside zone, an emergency parking zone, or the like provided inside the traveling lane 62 is selected with priority over the traveling lane 62, and the traveling lane 62 is selected.”);
a shoulder stop as a level 4 type (see at least Ishioka [0078]: “The stop area determination process refers to map information based on the position of the own vehicle, and extracts a plurality of stop areas that are suitable for stopping, such as a road shoulder and an evacuation space in the traveling direction of the own vehicle.”);
and a parking lane stop as a level 5 type (see at least Ishioka [0074]: “The stop event is an event in which the vehicle is stopped at a safe position (for example, an emergency parking zone, a roadside zone, a shoulder, a parking area, etc.) while degenerating the vehicle control.”)
Ishioka fails to expressly disclose a straight stop as a level 1 type and performing the second minimal risk maneuver type when the first minimal risk maneuver type has been performed at a level higher than a predetermined level and there is at least one vehicle around the vehicle. However, Tsuji teaches
wherein the plurality of types comprises: a straight stop as a level 1 type (see at least Tsuji [0265]: “In other words, in view of possibility that the own vehicle H collides with the other vehicle when being evacuated toward the road shoulder region, the emergency stop control part 130 does not generate an evacuation path to the road shoulder region, but executes a travel lane stopping process for making the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane, before the end point Pe, in step S99.”; instant application [0080] defines a straight stop as longitudinal control of the vehicle without lateral control; Tsuji teaches without lateral control because an evacuation path is not generated);
wherein the first minimal risk maneuver type is the level 3 type or is higher than the level 3 type (see at least Tsuji [0077]: “In the evacuation traveling control, the control section 100 generates an evacuation path for evacuating the vehicle to an emergency stop location that is set in a road shoulder region R, and the control section 100 controls operation of the actuator 40 so that the vehicle will travel on the evacuation path.”),
wherein the second minimal risk maneuver type is the level 1 type or the level 2 type (see at least Tsuji [0267]: “In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane.”),
wherein, when the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type has been performed at a level higher than a predetermined level and there is at least one vehicle around the vehicle, the processor determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0265]: “In other words, in view of possibility that the own vehicle H collides with the other vehicle when being evacuated toward the road shoulder region, the emergency stop control part 130 does not generate an evacuation path to the road shoulder region, but executes a travel lane stopping process for making the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane, before the end point Pe, in step S99.”),
and wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type, based on a degree of performance of the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type, and maneuver contents of the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0269]: “The emergency stop control part 130 sets multiple stop location candidates in a free space existing before the end point Pe. The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location.”; [0257]: “Thus, the process in which the collision risk of collision with an obstacle on a road is the predetermined degree or higher, is interrupted, and a stop location is set in order to execute the operation in the process subsequent to the interrupted process. This enables changing to a stop location and an evacuation path by the use of which an emergency stop is safely performed, before the collision risk is actualized due to change in traffic flow after the evacuation path to the emergency stop location is once set.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a degree of performance includes a risk value; Tsuji Fig. 12 shows stopping at a parking space or road shoulder has lower risk than stopping in a lane; Tsuji Fig. 13 shows how risk value changes based on vehicle speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system taught by Ishioka with the determination taught by Tsuji with reasonable expectation of success. Tsuji is directed towards the related field of a vehicle travel control apparatus. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Ishioka with Tsuji to improve safety in performing an appropriate maneuver while the environment changes (see at least Tsuji [0006]-[0007]: “However, the traffic situation around a vehicle changes every moment, and therefore, there are cases in which it is difficult to make the vehicle travel in accordance with a selected travel pattern or to make the vehicle stop at a set location. Moreover, in such cases, a new stop location may be searched for, but the time to make the vehicle stop tends to be prolonged in a situation in which the stop location is difficult to set due to traffic conditions or other cause. The technique disclosed herein has been made in view of these points, and an object of this technique is to improve safety in bringing a vehicle to an emergency stop.”).
Regarding claim 3, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
wherein, when the degree of risk around the vehicle is reduced or the state of the vehicle is improved while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed, the processor determines a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0268]: “In one example, at the time stopping in the road shoulder region proves to be impracticable, the rearward traffic conditions may be checked, and the own vehicle H may be made to decelerate and stop immediately at the current location in a case in which a risk of collision with the other vehicle J is low.”; Tsuji teaches a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver because the vehicle stops at the current location in the lane instead of stopping in the road shoulder).
Regarding claim 4, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
wherein, when the degree of risk around the vehicle is increased or the state of the vehicle is degraded while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed, the processor determines a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0265]: “In other words, in view of possibility that the own vehicle H collides with the other vehicle when being evacuated toward the road shoulder region, the emergency stop control part 130 does not generate an evacuation path to the road shoulder region, but executes a travel lane stopping process for making the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane, before the end point Pe, in step S99."; Tsuji Fig. 3D shows S99 results from a determination that a collision risk is a predetermined degree or higher in S92; Tsuji teaches a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver because the vehicle stops in the traveling lane instead of entering the stoppable region to stop at the emergency stop location).
Regarding claim 6, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
wherein the first minimal risk maneuver type is the level 3 type or is higher than the level 3 type (see at least Tsuji [0186]: “For example, in the case in which there is no surrounding on-road obstacle and the stoppable region R22 is a free space, as shown in FIG. 6, the collision risk is less than the predetermined degree, whereby the determination results in NO in step S92. Thus, the emergency stop control part 130 starts control for making the own vehicle H enter the stoppable region R22 and stop at the emergency stop location in step S93.”),
and wherein, when a speed of the vehicle is less than a predetermined speed while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed, the processor determines the level 1 type or the level 2 type as the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0267]: “In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane.”; Tsuji Fig. 3D shows the vehicle stops temporarily in S97 before setting the stop location for the traveling lane in S99; under broadest reasonable interpretation speed of a vehicle is less than a predetermined speed because the vehicle must decelerate to come to a temporary stop; Tsuji teaches a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver because the vehicle stops in the traveling lane instead of stopping on the shoulder).
Regarding claim 8, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
wherein, when the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type is performed at a level higher than a predetermined level, the processor determines not to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0186]: “For example, in the case in which there is no surrounding on-road obstacle and the stoppable region R22 is a free space, as shown in FIG. 6, the collision risk is less than the predetermined degree, whereby the determination results in NO in step S92. Thus, the emergency stop control part 130 starts control for making the own vehicle H enter the stoppable region R22 and stop at the emergency stop location in step S93…After the own vehicle H stops at the emergency stop location, the evacuation traveling control finishes.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type performed at a level higher than a predetermined level includes stopping on a road shoulder, which is higher than a level 2 type; Tsuji Fig. 3D teaches when a vehicle is stopped on a shoulder in S93, it does not perform stopping in the lane in S99 as the second minimal risk maneuver).
Regarding claim 9, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
and, wherein, when a speed of the vehicle is less than a predetermined speed while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed, the processor determines a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver type as the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0267]: “In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane.”; Tsuji Fig. 3D shows the vehicle stops temporarily in S97 before setting the stop location for the traveling lane in S99; under broadest reasonable interpretation speed of a vehicle is less than a predetermined speed because the vehicle must decelerate to come to a temporary stop; Tsuji teaches a lower-level type than the first minimal risk maneuver because the vehicle stops in the traveling lane instead of stopping on the shoulder).
Regarding claim 10, Ishioka in view of Tsuji teach all elements of the vehicle according to claim 1 as explained above. Tsuji further teaches
wherein the processor determines a highest type among the types that the vehicle is able to perform as the second minimal risk maneuver type (see at least Tsuji [0269]: “The emergency stop control part 130 sets multiple stop location candidates in a free space existing before the end point Pe. The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation the highest type is the stop location with the lowest risk).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a method for the vehicle system of claim 1. Ishioka in view of Tsuji also discloses a method for the system of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1. However, examiner also notes the “wherein, when the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle according to the contents of the first minimal risk maneuver type has been performed at a level higher than a predetermined level and there is at least one vehicle around the vehicle, the processor determines to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type” limitation is conditional on the first minimal risk maneuver type being performed at a level higher than a predetermined level and at least one vehicle around the vehicle. Since these conditions are not necessarily required to occur, the resulting step of determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver of the vehicle in accordance with the second minimal risk maneuver type also does not need to occur. Therefore, the prior art is not required to teach this limitation. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential).
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a method for the system of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a method for the system of claim 4 as explained above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a method for the system of claim 6 as explained above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a method for the system of claim 8 as explained above. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a method for the system of claim 10 as explained above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 10.
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 ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662