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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 17-30 of U.S. Application No. 18/054705 filed on 10/31/2025 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed10/31/2025. Claims 17-30 are newly added and Claims 1-16 are cancelled. Claims 17-30 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2019/0129422A1 (“Nojoumian”), in view of US 2024/0416915A1 (“Hayakawa”).
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 17-25, & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0332347A1 (“Rottkamp”), in view of US 2019/0129422A1 (“Nojoumian”), in view of US 2024/0416915A1 (“Hayakawa”).
As per claim 17 Rottkamp discloses
A method for operating a management program in a motor vehicle, the vehicle being capable of operating in a plurality of distinct driving modes corresponding to different levels of driving automation (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0019-0020]: With regard to the route type or the traffic situation, a distinction can be made between standard situations and special situations. In standard situations, for example, a software module can be used that is suitable for a large number of different but relatively simple driving situations, i.e. an “all-rounder.” Special software modules can be used for special situations, such as unclear intersections, driving in inner cities, off-road operation, driving on icy roads or in the dark, or the like…It is possible here for the same software module to be used for a specific traffic situation and/or a specific route type. In some cases, however, it can also be advantageous to use a special software module for specific positions, for example specific individual intersections or the like, or for driving in a closed region, for example in a multi-story car park.), the method comprising:
managing, by the management program, an intervention requested by an application program into at least one vehicle component (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0027]: If the software module is selected based on a predicted future position, it is possible in particular to only use this software module to process the surroundings data or for the determination of the driving intervention, when the motor vehicle has reached this position or has entered a region assigned to the position, for example has fallen below a pre-determined minimum distance from the position or has reached a route type assigned to the position, for example an intersection, a country road, a highway or the like.), wherein said managing includes:
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention, wherein the selection is based on a current driving mode of the plurality of driving modes (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0018]: A probable route type and/or a probable traffic situation can be determined at the position based on the position data, wherein the selected software module depends on the probable route type and/or the probable traffic situation. In order to allow such a classification, map data can be used, for example. In this case, route types are typically already assigned to various route segments on map data used, for example, in navigation systems, i.e., for example, information as to whether it is a highway, a country road, or an urban route. & para. [0022]: In this case, it may be possible, for example, to provide packages for specific operating situations, i.e. for example, exclusively for driving on highways and country roads or also exclusively for driving in city traffic. However, it is also possible that the use of all software modules for a specific area is re-leased for a vehicle or a specific user. For example, an “autonomous driving in Ingolstadt” package can be offered that provides all the modules required for an autonomous driving operation in Ingolstadt.), wherein:
wherein the selection is performed in response to a change in said driving mode and is independent of a current driver status or an immediate external traffic hazard (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0022] & para. [0029]: In this case, the route can be planned in such a way, for example, that suitable software modules are available along the entire route or at least over the largest possible parts of the route, in order to implement assisted or at least semi-automated driving of the motor vehicle. In other words, when planning the route, positions can be avoided for which no software modules or only conditionally suitable software modules are available, which, for example, only allow driving at walking speed or otherwise restricted driving operation. para. [0050]: The selected software module 9 can then be loaded into a memory of the processing device 3and can receive the surroundings data 6 via a defined input interface and output the driving intervention 8 to the vehicle system 4 via a defined output interface. It is thus possible in the method explained or in the motor vehicle 1 to select a software module 9, 10 that is tailored to the specific driving situation in order to carry out the vehicle driving. As a result, high-quality vehicle driving can already be achieved with software modules 9, 10 with relatively little complexity.),
However Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention by selecting a set of quantitative safety limits from a plurality of predefined sets of safety limits,
wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation, and
wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation.
Nojoumian teaches
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention by selecting a set of quantitative safety limits from a plurality of predefined sets of safety limits, wherein the selection is based on a current driving mode of the plurality of driving modes (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0069]: Thereafter, the vehicle on-board computing device 220 performs operations in 416 to enforce rules associated with the selected driving style setting option. This enforcement can be achieved by performing operations by ADM software module(s) 108, 244 to subscribe to at least one event (e.g., an action or occurrence of recognized software). The ADM software module(s) 108, 244 can select the one or more events for subscription based on the particulars of the rules associated with the selected vehicle operational mode. … For example, if a rule states that the vehicle speed should be 5 miles below the speed limit of 65 miles per hour, then the comparison involves comparing the measured speed value to the speed value of 65 miles per hour. Results of this comparison are then used to determine if an action needs to be taken (e.g., for example, slow down the vehicle speed via brakes or gear shifting). If so, the action is identified (e.g., apply brakes or shift gears) and a control message is generated by the ADM software module(s) 108, 244. The control message is sent from the ADM software module(s) 108, 244 to the vehicle OS. The vehicle OS controls operations of the vehicle in accordance with the contents of the control message. For example, the current speed of the vehicle is compared against a pre-defined speed threshold value. If the current speed value exceeds the pre-defined speed threshold value, then an action is taken such as causing the vehicles speed to be reduced to a value below the pre-defined speed threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, and the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and the characteristic from the safety feature map, and the at least one intervention is based on the output signal and corresponds to one of a braking intervention and a steering intervention into a respective braking or steering performed by the at least one component of Nojoumian, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provides a convenient, pleasant and trustworthy experience for humans who utilize autonomous vehicles (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0023]).
Hayakawa teaches
wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0017]: On the other hand, the driving mode corresponding to the level 3 is an eyes-off mode. That is, when the driving assistance level is set to the level 3, the processor 10 controls the driving of the subject vehicle 1 by the eyes-off mode that permits the subject vehicle 1 to travel in a state where the driver does not visually confirm the front. At this time, the system of the driving control device 100 uses a camera, a radar, or the like to autonomously monitor the surrounding conditions of the subject vehicle. Additionally, the driving mode corresponding to the level 3 is a hands-off mode. The hands-off mode is a mode in which steering control by the processor 10 operates even if driver's hold on the steering wheel 104a is released.), and
wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0024-0026]: The drive controller 106 controls the operation of the subject vehicle 1 based on a control command from the driving control device 100. For example, the drive controller 106 controls the operation of a drive mechanism (including the operation of an internal combustion engine in a vehicle with an engine and the operation of a travel motor in an electric vehicle system, and including torque distribution between an internal combustion engine and a travel motor in a hybrid vehicle) and the braking operation for adjusting the acceleration/deceleration and the vehicle speed by means of an autonomous speed control function. & para. [0031]: The vehicle control unit 15 may execute the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 when the vehicle speed V3 of the other vehicle 3 is higher than the vehicle speed V1 of the subject vehicle 1 (when it is determined that the other vehicle 3 is detected). Additionally, the vehicle control unit 15 may control the driving of the subject vehicle 1 so as not to execute the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 when the vehicle speed V3 of the other vehicle 3 is equal to or less than the vehicle speed V1 of the subject vehicle 1 (when it is determined that the other vehicle 3 is not detected). Further, the vehicle control unit 15 maintains the level 3 until a predetermined time elapses after the execution of the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 is started.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation, and wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation of Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the lane-change control to be executed while maintaining the predetermined driving assistance level when the subject vehicle traveling behind the preceding vehicle at the driving assistance level changes the lane (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0006]).
As per claim 18 Rottkamp discloses
wherein the at least one intervention takes place internally (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0014]: The software modules can be stored in particular on a data carrier or in a database in the motor vehicle. They can be loaded as required, so that, for example, only the selected software module is loaded. Alternatively, a plurality of software modules can be available for immediate execution and it can be selected as required which of these software modules is used to provide the driving intervention.).
As per claim 19 Rottkamp discloses
wherein the at least one intervention takes place externally (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0035]: In this case, it is possible, for example, for operating personnel who remotely control the vehicle to be present at the corresponding vehicle-external device. However, it is also possible for the vehicle-external device to provide an algorithm for driving the motor vehicle in specific situations, which cannot be carried out in the motor vehicle itself for certain reasons, for example due to a high computing effort.).
As per claim 20 Rottkamp discloses
wherein the at least one application program is configured to implement a driver assistance system (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0015]: The driving intervention can be used in particular for fully automated driving of the motor vehicle. However, only partial driving, for example pure longitudinal driving or pure lateral driving, of the motor vehicle can also take place. Various degrees of automation that can be used within the scope of the automated method have already been explained at the outset. & para. [0022]).
As per claim 21 Rottkamp discloses
wherein the extent of the at least one intervention is limited (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0015]: The driving intervention can be used in particular for fully automated driving of the motor vehicle. However, only partial driving, for example pure longitudinal driving or pure lateral driving, of the motor vehicle can also take place. Various degrees of automation that can be used within the scope of the automated method have already been explained at the outset. & para. [0029]: It may also be possible that there are no licenses for parts of the potentially usable software modules or the like for a specific motor vehicle or a specific user, so that these cannot be used or can only be used to a limited extent. In this case, the route can be planned in such a way, for example, that suitable software modules are available along the entire route or at least over the largest possible parts of the route, in order to implement assisted or at least semi-automated driving of the motor vehicle.).
As per claim 22 Rottkamp discloses
wherein the extent of the at least one intervention is expanded (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0015]: The driving intervention can be used in particular for fully automated driving of the motor vehicle. However, only partial driving, for example pure longitudinal driving or pure lateral driving, of the motor vehicle can also take place. Various degrees of automation that can be used within the scope of the automated method have already been explained at the outset.).
As per claim 23 Rottkamp discloses
wherein characteristics, which are assigned to different driving modes, are accessed (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0019-0020]: With regard to the route type or the traffic situation, a distinction can be made between standard situations and special situations. In standard situations, for example, a software module can be used that is suitable for a large number of different but relatively simple driving situations, i.e. an “all-rounder.” Special software modules can be used for special situations, such as unclear intersections, driving in inner cities, off-road operation, driving on icy roads or in the dark, or the like…It is possible here for the same software module to be used for a specific traffic situation and/or a specific route type. In some cases, however, it can also be advantageous to use a special software module for specific positions, for example specific individual intersections or the like, or for driving in a closed region, for example in a multi-story car park.).
As per claim 24 Rottkamp discloses
wherein a transition is carried out between different characteristics (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0024-0026]: In principle, it is possible to call up the selected software module from the vehicle-external device only during its selection for the current position. However, in order to allow the assisted or semi-automated driving to react quickly to a changed driving situation and to be independent of the connection quality of the wireless communication, it can be advantageous to predict future driving operation of the motor vehicle or to plan a route to be traveled in the future, for example with help of a navigation system. Appropriate approaches are known in principle in the prior art and will not be explained in detail. In this case, a corresponding software module can be called up by the vehicle-external device and stored in a local memory of the motor vehicle even before a corresponding predicted future position is reached. It can remain there permanently or it is also possible to call up software modules again when planning a new route, for example in order to be able to always provide current versions or to ensure that appropriate licenses are available.).
As per claim 25 Rottkamp discloses
wherein during the transition between the different characteristics, a run-up phase and a drop phase are taken into account (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0026]: In principle, it is also known to determine a probable route without a predetermined destination. For example, based on a current driving situation and a statistical evaluation of the right of way of the same motor vehicle or the same user, a prognosis can be made with regard to the route sections that will be traveled in the future. Such a prediction of a future route and thus future positions on the route can be used in particular to check at an early stage whether a suitable software module for assisted or semi-automated driving of the motor vehicle is available at a corresponding position or whether it should be called up, for example by a vehicle-external device, a user should be asked whether a corresponding license should be purchased, information should be given to the user that he has to drive the motor vehicle without assistance or manually, external help should be requested, for example remote control of the vehicle or an external driver boarding, or similar.).
As per claim 28 Rottkamp discloses
A system for operating a management program in a motor vehicle, the vehicle being capable of operating in a plurality of distinct driving modes corresponding to different levels of driving automation (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0019-0020]: With regard to the route type or the traffic situation, a distinction can be made between standard situations and special situations. In standard situations, for example, a software module can be used that is suitable for a large number of different but relatively simple driving situations, i.e. an “all-rounder.” Special software modules can be used for special situations, such as unclear intersections, driving in inner cities, off-road operation, driving on icy roads or in the dark, or the like…It is possible here for the same software module to be used for a specific traffic situation and/or a specific route type. In some cases, however, it can also be advantageous to use a special software module for specific positions, for example specific individual intersections or the like, or for driving in a closed region, for example in a multi-story car park.), the system configured to:
manage, by the management program, an intervention requested by an application program into at least one vehicle component (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0027]: If the software module is selected based on a predicted future position, it is possible in particular to only use this software module to process the surroundings data or for the determination of the driving intervention, when the motor vehicle has reached this position or has entered a region assigned to the position, for example has fallen below a pre-determined minimum distance from the position or has reached a route type assigned to the position, for example an intersection, a country road, a highway or the like.), wherein the system is configured to manage the intervention by:
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention, wherein the selection is based on a current driving mode of the plurality of driving modes (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0018]: A probable route type and/or a probable traffic situation can be determined at the position based on the position data, wherein the selected software module depends on the probable route type and/or the probable traffic situation. In order to allow such a classification, map data can be used, for example. In this case, route types are typically already assigned to various route segments on map data used, for example, in navigation systems, i.e., for example, information as to whether it is a highway, a country road, or an urban route. & para. [0022]: In this case, it may be possible, for example, to provide packages for specific operating situations, i.e. for example, exclusively for driving on highways and country roads or also exclusively for driving in city traffic. However, it is also possible that the use of all software modules for a specific area is re-leased for a vehicle or a specific user. For example, an “autonomous driving in Ingolstadt” package can be offered that provides all the modules required for an autonomous driving operation in Ingolstadt.),
wherein the selection is performed in response to a change in said driving mode and is independent of a current driver status or an immediate external traffic hazard (see at least Rottkamp, para. [0022] & para. [0029]: In this case, the route can be planned in such a way, for example, that suitable software modules are available along the entire route or at least over the largest possible parts of the route, in order to implement assisted or at least semi-automated driving of the motor vehicle. In other words, when planning the route, positions can be avoided for which no software modules or only conditionally suitable software modules are available, which, for example, only allow driving at walking speed or otherwise restricted driving operation. para. [0050]: The selected software module 9 can then be loaded into a memory of the processing device 3and can receive the surroundings data 6 via a defined input interface and output the driving intervention 8 to the vehicle system 4 via a defined output interface. It is thus possible in the method explained or in the motor vehicle 1 to select a software module 9, 10 that is tailored to the specific driving situation in order to carry out the vehicle driving. As a result, high-quality vehicle driving can already be achieved with software modules 9, 10 with relatively little complexity.),
However Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention by selecting a set of quantitative safety limits from a plurality of predefined sets of safety limits,
wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation, and
wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation.
Nojoumian teaches
proactively establishing an extent of the intervention by selecting a set of quantitative safety limits from a plurality of predefined sets of safety limits, wherein the selection is based on a current driving mode of the plurality of driving modes (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0069]: Thereafter, the vehicle on-board computing device 220 performs operations in 416 to enforce rules associated with the selected driving style setting option. This enforcement can be achieved by performing operations by ADM software module(s) 108, 244 to subscribe to at least one event (e.g., an action or occurrence of recognized software). The ADM software module(s) 108, 244 can select the one or more events for subscription based on the particulars of the rules associated with the selected vehicle operational mode. … For example, if a rule states that the vehicle speed should be 5 miles below the speed limit of 65 miles per hour, then the comparison involves comparing the measured speed value to the speed value of 65 miles per hour. Results of this comparison are then used to determine if an action needs to be taken (e.g., for example, slow down the vehicle speed via brakes or gear shifting). If so, the action is identified (e.g., apply brakes or shift gears) and a control message is generated by the ADM software module(s) 108, 244. The control message is sent from the ADM software module(s) 108, 244 to the vehicle OS. The vehicle OS controls operations of the vehicle in accordance with the contents of the control message. For example, the current speed of the vehicle is compared against a pre-defined speed threshold value. If the current speed value exceeds the pre-defined speed threshold value, then an action is taken such as causing the vehicles speed to be reduced to a value below the pre-defined speed threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, and the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and the characteristic from the safety feature map, and the at least one intervention is based on the output signal and corresponds to one of a braking intervention and a steering intervention into a respective braking or steering performed by the at least one component of Nojoumian, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provides a convenient, pleasant and trustworthy experience for humans who utilize autonomous vehicles (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0023]).
Hayakawa teaches
wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0017]: On the other hand, the driving mode corresponding to the level 3 is an eyes-off mode. That is, when the driving assistance level is set to the level 3, the processor 10 controls the driving of the subject vehicle 1 by the eyes-off mode that permits the subject vehicle 1 to travel in a state where the driver does not visually confirm the front. At this time, the system of the driving control device 100 uses a camera, a radar, or the like to autonomously monitor the surrounding conditions of the subject vehicle. Additionally, the driving mode corresponding to the level 3 is a hands-off mode. The hands-off mode is a mode in which steering control by the processor 10 operates even if driver's hold on the steering wheel 104a is released.), and
wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0024-0026]: The drive controller 106 controls the operation of the subject vehicle 1 based on a control command from the driving control device 100. For example, the drive controller 106 controls the operation of a drive mechanism (including the operation of an internal combustion engine in a vehicle with an engine and the operation of a travel motor in an electric vehicle system, and including torque distribution between an internal combustion engine and a travel motor in a hybrid vehicle) and the braking operation for adjusting the acceleration/deceleration and the vehicle speed by means of an autonomous speed control function. & para. [0031]: The vehicle control unit 15 may execute the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 when the vehicle speed V3 of the other vehicle 3 is higher than the vehicle speed V1 of the subject vehicle 1 (when it is determined that the other vehicle 3 is detected). Additionally, the vehicle control unit 15 may control the driving of the subject vehicle 1 so as not to execute the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 when the vehicle speed V3 of the other vehicle 3 is equal to or less than the vehicle speed V1 of the subject vehicle 1 (when it is determined that the other vehicle 3 is not detected). Further, the vehicle control unit 15 maintains the level 3 until a predetermined time elapses after the execution of the lane-change control at the driving assistance level of the level 3 is started.),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein a first set of safety limits associated with a higher level of driving automation permits the intervention from the application program to be stronger than with a second set of safety limits associated with a lower level of driving automation, and wherein the stronger intervention is implemented when the current driving mode corresponds to the higher level of driving automation of Hayakawa, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for the lane-change control to be executed while maintaining the predetermined driving assistance level when the subject vehicle traveling behind the preceding vehicle at the driving assistance level changes the lane (see at least Hayakawa, para. [0006]).
Claim(s) 26-27, & 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rottkamp, in view of Nojoumian, in view of Hayakawa, in view of US 2021/0380080A1 (“Bielby”).
As per claim 26 Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic stored in the safety features map, wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention.
Bielby teaches
wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, (see at least Bielby, para. [0041]: The vehicle computer 110 may analyze the sensor data to determine the presence of a nearby object, an instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the detected object, the velocity that the detected object is approaching the vehicle relative to the vehicle's frame of reference, other values derived from the position and/or velocity relating to the timing that the detected object could potentially collide with the vehicle.), and
wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, (see at least Bielby, para. [0045-0049]: To determine a braking condition such as, for example, the first braking condition 310 or the second braking condition 311, braking threshold levels may be applied. As depicted in FIG. 3, a soft braking threshold level may be a function of distance and velocity relative to the detected object. As the velocity of the detected object (relative to the vehicle) increases or the distance of the detected object (relative to the vehicle) decreases, such conditions fall below the soft braking threshold level305. In other words, the soft braking threshold level 305 may be visualized in FIG. 3 as a curve such that conditions falling below the curve are considered braking conditions such as, for example, the first braking condition 310 and second braking condition.), and
wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention (see at least Bielby, Fig. 3 & para. [0043]: The braking threshold levels may be based on, for example, the distance between the vehicle and the detected object (visualized along the x-axis) and the velocity of the detected object relative to the vehicle (visualized along the y-axis).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention of Bielby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to slow down in response to a potentially dangerous condition or otherwise adjusted to accommodate a slow response from the driver (see at least Bielby, para. [0009]).
Nojoumian teaches
each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0030]: Each of the above mentioned driving style setting selection options has one or more pre-defined rules associated therewith for controlling operations of the autonomous vehicle. For example, a first pre-defined rule of a first driving style setting selection option is designed to mimic a first person's driving habits. A second pre-defined rule of a second driving style setting selection option is designed to mimic a second different person's driving habits. The first or second pre-defined rule states that (1) the speed of the autonomous vehicle is to remain below a given threshold value which is selected based on machined-learned driving habits of the person (e.g., 5 miles below the speed limit), (2) the vehicle should not make more than a certain number of lane changes (which is selected based on machined-learned driving habits of the person) in a given amount of time, (3) the vehicle should mostly use right-hand-side lanes, (4) the vehicle should avoid over-passing other cars, (5) the entertainment unit should have a specific setting (e.g., the volume of sound, the radio/satellite channel, etc.), and (6) other actions associated with the driving style. The present solution is not limited to the particulars of this example.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic of Nojoumian, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provides a convenient, pleasant and trustworthy experience for humans who utilize autonomous vehicles (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0023]).
As per claim 27 Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
wherein the characteristic corresponding to the driving mode is plotted in the safety feature map.
Bielby teaches
wherein the characteristic corresponding to the driving mode is plotted in the safety feature map (see at least Bielby, Fig. 3 & para. [0043]: The braking threshold levels may be based on, for example, the distance between the vehicle and the detected object (visualized along the x-axis) and the velocity of the detected object relative to the vehicle (visualized along the y-axis).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention of Bielby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to slow down in response to a potentially dangerous condition or otherwise adjusted to accommodate a slow response from the driver (see at least Bielby, para. [0009]).
As per claim 29 Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic stored in the safety features map, wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention.
Bielby teaches
wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, (see at least Bielby, para. [0041]: The vehicle computer 110 may analyze the sensor data to determine the presence of a nearby object, an instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the detected object, the velocity that the detected object is approaching the vehicle relative to the vehicle's frame of reference, other values derived from the position and/or velocity relating to the timing that the detected object could potentially collide with the vehicle.), and
wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, (see at least Bielby, para. [0045-0049]: To determine a braking condition such as, for example, the first braking condition 310 or the second braking condition 311, braking threshold levels may be applied. As depicted in FIG. 3, a soft braking threshold level may be a function of distance and velocity relative to the detected object. As the velocity of the detected object (relative to the vehicle) increases or the distance of the detected object (relative to the vehicle) decreases, such conditions fall below the soft braking threshold level305. In other words, the soft braking threshold level 305 may be visualized in FIG. 3 as a curve such that conditions falling below the curve are considered braking conditions such as, for example, the first braking condition 310 and second braking condition.), and
wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention (see at least Bielby, Fig. 3 & para. [0043]: The braking threshold levels may be based on, for example, the distance between the vehicle and the detected object (visualized along the x-axis) and the velocity of the detected object relative to the vehicle (visualized along the y-axis).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein the management program receives an input signal provided by the at least one application program, wherein the management program receives from a safety features map a characteristic corresponding to the driving mode, wherein the management program supplies an output signal to a module for automated driving based on the input signal and on the characteristic from the safety features map, wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention of Bielby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to slow down in response to a potentially dangerous condition or otherwise adjusted to accommodate a slow response from the driver (see at least Bielby, para. [0009]).
Nojoumian teaches
each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0030]: Each of the above mentioned driving style setting selection options has one or more pre-defined rules associated therewith for controlling operations of the autonomous vehicle. For example, a first pre-defined rule of a first driving style setting selection option is designed to mimic a first person's driving habits. A second pre-defined rule of a second driving style setting selection option is designed to mimic a second different person's driving habits. The first or second pre-defined rule states that (1) the speed of the autonomous vehicle is to remain below a given threshold value which is selected based on machined-learned driving habits of the person (e.g., 5 miles below the speed limit), (2) the vehicle should not make more than a certain number of lane changes (which is selected based on machined-learned driving habits of the person) in a given amount of time, (3) the vehicle should mostly use right-hand-side lanes, (4) the vehicle should avoid over-passing other cars, (5) the entertainment unit should have a specific setting (e.g., the volume of sound, the radio/satellite channel, etc.), and (6) other actions associated with the driving style. The present solution is not limited to the particulars of this example.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of each one of the different driving modes corresponding to a different characteristic of Nojoumian, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provides a convenient, pleasant and trustworthy experience for humans who utilize autonomous vehicles (see at least Nojoumian, para. [0023]).
As per claim 30 Rottkamp does not explicitly disclose
wherein the characteristic corresponding to the driving mode is plotted in the safety feature map.
Bielby teaches
wherein the characteristic corresponding to the driving mode is plotted in the safety feature map (see at least Bielby, Fig. 3 & para. [0043]: The braking threshold levels may be based on, for example, the distance between the vehicle and the detected object (visualized along the x-axis) and the velocity of the detected object relative to the vehicle (visualized along the y-axis).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rottkamp to incorporate the teaching of wherein the safety features map includes an abscissa and an ordinate, wherein one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to a velocity of the motor vehicle, and wherein another one of the abscissa and the ordinate is a parameter that corresponds to one of a maximally permitted brake intervention and a maximally permitted steering intervention of Bielby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to slow down in response to a potentially dangerous condition or otherwise adjusted to accommodate a slow response from the driver (see at least Bielby, para. [0009]).
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668