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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/038384 has Claims 1, 3-11 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Applicant claimed Foreign Priority from Japanese Application No. JP2020-208963. The priority filing date of this application is December 17, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated May 23, 2023 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder (such as ‘that’) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: ‘a risk analysis unit’, ‘a scenario management unit’, ‘a first parameter specifying unit’, ‘a credibility level calculation unit’, ‘a correlation level calculation unit’, ‘a scenario determination unit’, ‘an action determination unit’, ‘a second parameter specifying unit’, ‘a scenario generating unit’ in Claims 1, 3-9, 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3-9, 11 are 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.
Claim 6 recites “a specific ODD parameter”. The nomenclature (‘ODD’) needs to be expanded in the claim language. Also the claim needs to explain how a specific ODD parameter is related the given evaluation criterion. Appropriate correction is required.
For Claims 1, 3-9, 11 the claim limitations ‘a risk analysis unit’, ‘a scenario management unit’, ‘a first parameter specifying unit’, ‘a credibility level calculation unit’, ‘a correlation level calculation unit’, ‘a scenario determination unit’, ‘an action determination unit’, ‘a second parameter specifying unit’, ‘a scenario generating unit’ invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification does not disclose the specific algorithm or functional logic of the claim limitations beyond what is recited in the claim limitations themselves. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically treated is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1, 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 11 recite
calculates a credibility level of the risk parameter;
calculates a correlation level of the risk parameter with an existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database;
all of which are mathematical calculations.
The independent claims also recite
analyzes the sensor information while the automobile is traveling;
manages a traveling scenario that characterizes a traveling situation of the automobile;
a first parameter specifying unit that specifies a risk parameter from the sensor information acquired by the sensor unit, the risk parameter indicating a risk involved in traveling of the automobile;
determines a level of correspondence of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario, based on the credibility level of the risk parameter and on the correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario;
determines a driving control action for
controlling driving of the automobile, based on the level of correspondence of the risk parameter
with the existing traveling scenario,
when the correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, specifies a new risk parameter from among risk parameters, the new risk parameter being not included in the existing scenario stored in the scenario database;
generates a new traveling scenario, based on at least the new risk parameter, the scenario generating unit adding the new traveling scenario to the scenario database.
generates a new traveling scenario, based on at least the new risk parameter, the scenario generating unit adding the new traveling scenario to the scenario database.
when a credibility level of the risk parameter satisfies a given credibility level criterion, and a correlation level of the risk parameter with respect to a first traveling scenario stored in the scenario database satisfies a given correlation level criterion, that the risk parameter corresponds with the first traveling scenario;
determines a first driving control action for controlling driving of the automobile, based on the first traveling scenario.
All of which are process steps that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Said limitations in Claims 1, 10 and 11 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic hardware/computer components. Other than reciting “a sensor unit” , “a risk analysis unit”, “a scenario management unit”, “a scenario database”, “a credibility level calculation unit”, “a credibility level calculation unit”,” a scenario determination unit”, “an action determination unit”, “a second parameter specifying unit”, “a scenario generating unit”, “an automobile” ,“a nearby automobile existing near the automobile”, “a cloud server” etc. in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or a mathematical calculation . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or a mathematical calculation, but for the recitation of generic hardware/computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concept” groupings of abstract ideas. As such claims 1, 10, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements of “a sensor unit” , “a risk analysis unit”, “a scenario management unit”, “a scenario database”, “a credibility level calculation unit”, “a credibility level calculation unit”,” a scenario determination unit”, “an action determination unit”, “a second parameter specifying unit”, “a scenario generating unit”, “an automobile” ,“a nearby automobile existing near the automobile”, “a cloud server” etc. to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic hardware/computer component. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of receiving a plurality of measured values from a sensor and storing traveling scenario in a database is an insignificant pre-solution activity. As such these additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the pre-processing step of receiving measured values and storing values is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claims 1, 10 and 11 only recite “a sensor unit” , “a risk analysis unit”, “a scenario management unit”, “a scenario database”, “a credibility level calculation unit”, “a credibility level calculation unit”,” a scenario determination unit”, “an action determination unit”, “a second parameter specifying unit”, “a scenario generating unit”, “an automobile” ,“a nearby automobile existing near the automobile”, “a cloud server” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose hardware/computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and hardware to perform the analyzing, calculating, determining and generating steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer/hardware component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 10, and 11 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent Claim 3 disclose
when a credibility level of the risk parameter satisfies a given credibility level criterion but a correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, the scenario determination unit determines that the risk parameter corresponds with an unknown traveling scenario, and
the action determination unit determines a second driving control action of eliminating the risk parameter.
This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process step that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent Claim 4 disclose
when a credibility level of the risk parameter does not satisfy a given credibility level
criterion and a correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored
in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, the scenario
determination unit determines that the risk parameter corresponds with an undefined traveling
scenario, and
the action determination unit determines a third driving control action of controlling
driving of the automobile in such a way as to put the automobile in a traveling state that satisfies
a given safety criterion.
This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process step that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent Claim 5 disclose
when a credibility level of the risk parameter does not satisfy a given credibility level
criterion and a correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored
in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, the scenario
determination unit determines that the risk parameter corresponds with an undefined traveling
scenario, and
the action determination unit determines a third driving control action of controlling
driving of the automobile in such a way as to put the automobile in a traveling state that satisfies
a given safety criterion.
This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a process step that covers mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Thus, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent Claim 6 disclose
wherein the given evaluation criterion includes a frequency of occurrence of a hazard corresponding with the safety condition, a severity level of the hazard corresponding with the safety condition, a frequency of the safety condition's becoming a risk parameter, an effect of l avoiding the hazard corresponding with the safety condition, and a specific ODD parameter.
This is just specifying additional details of the claimed element of the independent claim. As such these additional elements also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 7 disclose
wherein the scenario management unit further includes a scenario updating unit that calculates an impact level of the risk parameter on the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database and that, when the impact level satisfies a given impact level criterion, updates the existing traveling scenario, based on the risk parameter.
The above element utilizes mathematical calculation/relationships - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent Claim 8 disclose
wherein when the effectiveness score indicating effectiveness of the safety condition satisfies a given effectiveness criterion, the scenario updating unit updates the existing traveling scenario, based on the effectiveness score.
The above element utilizes mathematical calculation/relationships - which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical concepts.”
Dependent Claim 9 disclose
wherein the scenario management unit further includes a transfer unit that when the new traveling scenario is added to the scenario database, transfers the new traveling scenario to a nearby automobile existing near the automobile, via a communication network.
Which is a recitation of transfer means of the output, which is an additional step of a post processing step which is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
7. Claims 1, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Matus et al. hereafter Matus (Pub. No.: US 2018/0292835 A1), in view of Emily Lerner hereafter Lerner (Pub. No.: US 2020/0148200 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matus discloses a risk management apparatus that manages a risk involved in traveling of an automobile (Matus: abstract), the risk management apparatus comprising:
a sensor unit that acquires sensor information on the automobile and on a surrounding environment of the automobile (Matus: Figure 1B-item S140: [0010]);
a risk analysis unit that analyzes the sensor information while the automobile is traveling (Matus: Figure 1B-item S140: [0010]: collect data describing real-world driving situations associated with different environments and/or human behavioral factors, and test autonomous vehicle function such situations (simulated or actual);
a scenario management unit that manages a traveling scenario that characterizes a traveling situation of the automobile (Matus: Figure 1B-item S140, [0008]: environmental conditions surrounding the autonomous vehicle); and
a scenario database that stores the traveling scenario (Matus: [0020]: a cohesive database system),
wherein
the risk analysis unit includes:
a first parameter specifying unit that specifies a risk parameter from the sensor information acquired by the sensor unit, the risk parameter indicating a risk involved in traveling of the automobile (Matus: Figure 1B-item S140, [0051]: determining a sensor-environment risk parameter);
a credibility level calculation unit that calculates a credibility level of the risk parameter (Matus: [0064]: the surrounding risk parameter can be associated with a sensor system-appropriateness metric for external conditions that characterizes exposure risk (e.g., in relation to time or distance) quantitatively or qualitatively (e.g., low risk to high risk));
a correlation level calculation unit that calculates a correlation level of the risk parameter with an existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database (Matus: [0064]: the surrounding risk parameter can provide a value of how appropriate the vehicle systems are for the environmental conditions of the driving mission ( e.g., "the specifications of the vehicle are 72% appropriate in the current stormy conditions along the intended route");
a scenario determination unit that determines a level of correspondence of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario, based on the credibility level of the risk parameter and on the correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario (Matus: [0026]: a set of driving scenarios; [0064]: The surrounding risk parameter can characterize one or more of: road conditions ( e.g., with a value describing road suitability for driving in terms of quality, in terms of icing, in terms of slickness, in terms of obstructions, etc.) and weather conditions (e.g., with a value describing weather suitability for driving in terms of visibility, in terms of moisture, in terms of wind, in terms of dust, etc.).; and
an action determination unit that determines a driving control action for controlling driving of the automobile, based on the level of correspondence of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario (Matus: [0026]: a set of driving scenarios; [0065]: evaluation of values of proximity metrics within ranges acceptable for the driving behaviors geographic location; PVA-derived metrics associated with driving aggression (e.g., abruptness in changes in position, velocity, or acceleration of the vehicle); lane position-derived metrics (e.g., number of times lanes are crossed while driving straight ahead, distance to lane boundaries, etc.); number/frequency of collision incidents per unit distance or time; number/ frequency of near-collision incidents per unit distance or time),
a scenario generating unit that generates a new traveling scenario, based on at least the new risk parameter, the scenario generating unit adding the new traveling scenario to the scenario database (Matus: [0026], [0037]: generating a mix model characterizing operation of the autonomous vehicle in mixed-traffic driving scenarios);
the scenario determination unit determines, when a credibility level of the risk parameter satisfies a given credibility level criterion, and a correlation level of the risk parameter with respect to a first traveling scenario stored in the scenario database satisfies a given correlation level criterion, that the risk parameter corresponds with the first traveling scenario (Matus: [0064]: the surrounding risk parameter can provide a value of how appropriate the vehicle systems are for the environmental conditions of the driving mission ( e.g., "the specifications of the vehicle are 72% appropriate in the current stormy conditions along the intended route"……..The surrounding risk parameter can characterize one or more of: road conditions ( e.g., with a value describing road suitability for driving in terms of quality, in terms of icing, in terms of slickness, in terms of obstructions, etc.) and weather conditions (e.g., with a value describing weather suitability for driving in terms of visibility, in terms of moisture, in terms of wind, in terms of dust, etc );
and
the action determination unit determines a first driving control action for controlling driving of the automobile, based on the first traveling scenario (Matus: [0065]: evaluation of values of proximity metrics within ranges acceptable for the driving behaviors geographic location; PVA-derived metrics associated with driving aggression (e.g., abruptness in changes in position, velocity, or acceleration of the vehicle); lane position-derived metrics (e.g., number of times lanes are crossed while driving straight ahead, distance to lane boundaries, etc.); number/frequency of collision incidents per unit distance or time; number/ frequency of near-collision incidents per unit distance or time).
Matus do not explicitly disclose:
when the correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, specifies a new risk parameter from among risk parameters, the new risk parameter being not included in the existing scenario stored in the scenario database.
Lerner disclose:
when the correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, specifies a new risk parameter from among risk parameters, the new risk parameter being not included in the existing scenario stored in the scenario database (Lerner: Figure 3, [0053]: The accident prediction circuit 250 may compare the predicted probability of an accident to an accident probability threshold, at 312. When the probability of a vehicle crash exceeds the probability threshold, the accident prediction circuit 250 takes preventive action, at 314. The preventive action may include generating an alert for the occupants of the vehicle 102, controlling one or more of the operational systems of the vehicle to prevent the vehicle crash, and the like);
Matus and Lerner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to risk modeling and accident prevention of automobile vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above adaptive risk modeling application, as taught by Matus, and incorporating the use of probability threshold in implementing accident preventive action response, as taught by Lerner.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification to reduce, or even eliminate, vehicle accidents., as suggested by Lerner (Lerner: [0002]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of Matus and Lerner further disclose wherein the
scenario management unit further includes a transfer unit that when the new traveling scenario is added to the scenario database, transfers the new traveling scenario to a nearby automobile existing near the automobile, via a communication network (Matus: [0031], [0055], [0056]).
Examiner’s Note
8. Claims 3-8 distinguish over the prior art of record based on the following reasons:
With regards to Claims 3-5, the closest prior art, Matus and Lerner, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious
(Claim 3) when a credibility level of the risk parameter satisfies a given credibility level criterion but a correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, the scenario determination unit determines that the risk parameter corresponds with an unknown traveling scenario, and
the action determination unit determines a second driving control action of eliminating the risk parameter.
(Claim 4) when a credibility level of the risk parameter does not satisfy a given credibility level criterion and a correlation level of the risk parameter with the existing traveling scenario stored in the scenario database does not satisfy a given correlation level criterion, the scenario determination unit determines that the risk parameter corresponds with an undefined traveling scenario, and
the action determination unit determines a third driving control action of controlling driving of the automobile in such a way as to put the automobile in a traveling state that satisfies a given safety criterion.
(Claim 5) wherein the scenario management unit further includes a safety condition determination unit that based on a given evaluation criterion, evaluates a safety condition indicating a measure to take in a case where a specific hazard arises in a specific traveling scenario, thereby calculating an effectiveness score indicating effectiveness of the safety condition.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0307615 A1) relates to a driving assistance device and to a driving assistance program wherein indicating a presence of the risk factor when the risk handling control portion controls the risk handling unit not to execute the risk handling measure and the degree of the risk is equal to or higher than a predetermined value.
Li et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0059672 A1) relate to constructing a surrounding environment for autonomous vehicles to make driving decisions wherein the autonomous vehicle is controlled and driven based on the planned route segment chosen based on the overall driving condition of the surrounding environment, the route segment being one of a plurality of route segments associated with a route.
O'Toole et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0216928 A1) conceptually presents a risk management system that provides forecast of asset risk scores, an asset summary, an asset risk profile editor, and a consolidated view of rank ordered assets and threats based on impact weights of threats.
Hiroshi Sakaki (Patent No.: US 8,844,029 B2) defines a risk model wherein a risk value is calculated to suit a state and environment of an analysis target system, by presenting data for determining whether or not a calculated risk is correct, and presenting portions for parameters to be changed such as weights related to a threat, a vulnerability and a measure contained in the risk model.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights