CTFR 18/101,375 CTFR 96343 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the response filed on March 16, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claim 7 have been canceled by the applicant. This action is made FINAL. The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, applicants argue in pages 6-10 that the amendments “ wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event ” have overcome the 103. Applicant argues that Noto's initiating of emergency braking to avoid a collision with the object, does not correspond to the minimum risk maneuver mode of the presently claimed invention because Noto does not teach that a vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained, and Zhang and Patel fail to account for these deficiencies of Noto, because the Examiner cites only Noto (page 7-8). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, as Patel was cited in the prior action to teach a vehicle event which includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained. Patel states (“The autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the pre-handover maneuver 330 autonomously based on the current maneuvering parameters 120 and the handover trigger. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the immediate stop 338 regardless of the vehicle's location based on the system status trigger 312, an absence of a safe-to-travel determination (e.g., corresponding to an object located in the path of travel and within a threshold distance), specific types or instances of component or software errors or failures, or a combination thereof . In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the speed reduction 336 and slow the vehicle speed below a normal-operating speed (e.g., slower than the speed limit, the traffic flowrate, speed calculated without considering the handover trigger, or a combination thereof) based on the system status trigger 312 (e.g., a lower or decreasing tire pressure), the decision ambiguity trigger 314 (e.g., regarding a location and/or maneuver outside of a distance threshold), a safe-to-travel status, or a combination thereof.” [0056]), where Patel discloses a vehicle control system that may make a minimum risk maneuver decision, which includes stopping of the vehicle after deceleration or stopping of the vehicle, based on an object located in the path of travel of the vehicle in combination with a failure of a sensor. The failure of the sensor can lead to inability of the system to obtain state information of the vehicle. This is comparable to an event of an appearance of an obstacle in the path of the vehicle that occurs when the vehicle control system is unable to obtain state information of the vehicle. Therefore, this shows that Patel teaches a vehicle event where includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained which triggers the vehicle to execute a minimum risk maneuver. Noto in combination with Patel teaches the amended limitation “ wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event ”, as Noto teaches an apparatus wherein the driving mode includes a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode, (“The braking release means releases the emergency braking control when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the predetermined safety level from the start of the emergency braking control by the braking start means until the vehicle stops , and when the travel environment conditions have been established in accordance with the determination results by the travel environment determination means.” Noto [0009], and FIG. 3 and paragraph [0010]), discloses transitioning to a stop mode which is a minimum risk maneuver mode, as in the instant specifications, the minimum risk maneuver mode is described as (“In this regard, the minimum risk maneuver may include the stopping after the decelerating or the stopping after the lane change to the shoulder” instant specifications [0060]). Therefore, amended independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al. (US 2018/0151074 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0139052 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0186376 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 2019/0049948 A1). See detailed rejection below . Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al. (US 2018/0151074 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0139052 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0186376 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 2019/0049948 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Noto et al., discloses an apparatus for controlling driving of a vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0023] disclose a driving support system for controlling driving of a vehicle), the apparatus comprising: a sensor (FIG 1. blocks (21), (22), (23) and (24) disclose sensors.) configured to obtain state information of the vehicle during autonomous driving of the vehicle (Paragraph [0024] discloses the sensors obtaining state information of the vehicle.); a processor (Paragraph [0033] notes the content of the driving support controller (10) which includes a processor.) connected to the sensor (FIG 1. block (10) discloses a processor connected to sensors shown in blocks (21), (22), (23) and (24).) and configured to: perform emergency braking of the vehicle when a risk of collision of the vehicle is predicted based on the obtained state information of the vehicle (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0039], [0047]-[0059], disclose emergency braking based on obtained state information.); and a storage configured to store an algorithm for an operation of the processor (Paragraph [0033] notes storage, ROM, CPU (11) executing the program stored in ROM (12).). Noto et al. does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to: store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed; Zhang et al. teaches a task scheduling system for a vehicle including a processor that is configured to: store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed (paragraph [0039] discloses scheduling of events and executing the response to the events in order of priority which requires storing of events.); 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. to store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed; as taught by Zhang et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to: transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event , without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored ; and control to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved ; Lee et al., teaches transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event, without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored; (“The system request switching sub-step S143 is for judging whether or not the environmental condition data conforms to a system controlling threshold by the controlling device 140. It is assumed that the driving mode is originally in an autonomous driving mode ADM, and the controlling device 140 controls the vehicle according to the environmental condition data. When the environmental condition data conforms to the system controlling threshold, the driving mode maintains the autonomous driving mode ADM. When the environmental condition data doesn't conform to the system controlling threshold, the driving mode is switched from the autonomous driving mode ADM to a manual driving mode MDM.” [0024], “The driver safety takeover mechanism represents that the vehicle is taken over by the driver, and the driving mode is changed to the manual driving mode MDM” [0025], “In FIG. 7, the deciding method 200e of the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 further includes the autonomous emergency braking sub-step S149 for judging whether or not an emergency braking condition is detected by a brake sensor of a driver intervening detecting device 130. The emergency braking condition represents that the driver steps on the brake pedal very rapidly, and must not meet the system controlling threshold and security condition threshold. Therefore, when the emergency braking condition is detected by the brake sensor, the driving mode is forced to switch from the autonomous driving mode ADM to a manual driving mode MDM by the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100.” [0030]), where the vehicle transitions to a driving mode without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored. In combination with the automatic vehicle emergency brake of Zhang, this shows the transition to a driving mode that is not an autonomous driving mode from before the emergency brake is performed. Lee et al., teaches controlling the vehicle to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved, (“The driver intervening detecting sub-step S142 is for sensing a degree of an intervention of a driver to generate a driver intervening data by a driver intervening detecting device 130. The controlling device 140 stores a security condition threshold and a driver intervening threshold. The controlling device 140 judges whether or not the environmental condition data and the driver intervening data conform to the security condition threshold and the driver intervening threshold, respectively. If the driver intervention doesn't exceed a predetermined degree, the driving mode of the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 maintains the autonomous driving mode ADM… After the driver intervention being lower than the predetermined degree in the predetermined time, the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 is changed back to the original default settings in autonomous driving mode ADM.” [0029]), where after an action such as braking is done, and it is determined that the security degree is below a threshold, in which there would be no collision risk, the vehicle returns to autonomous driving mode. 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. to transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event, without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored; and control to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved; as taught by Zhang et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, does not teach an apparatus wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained and wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event. Patel et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained (paragraph (56) discloses a vehicle control system that may make a decision based on an object located in the path of travel of the vehicle in combination with a failure of a sensor. The decision, which is part of the main inventive concept of Patel et al., is related to the task of a pre-handover maneuver of an autonomous vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle needs assistance in driving. Patel states (“The autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the pre-handover maneuver 330 autonomously based on the current maneuvering parameters 120 and the handover trigger. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the immediate stop 338 regardless of the vehicle's location based on the system status trigger 312, an absence of a safe-to-travel determination (e.g., corresponding to an object located in the path of travel and within a threshold distance), specific types or instances of component or software errors or failures, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the speed reduction 336 and slow the vehicle speed below a normal-operating speed (e.g., slower than the speed limit, the traffic flowrate, speed calculated without considering the handover trigger, or a combination thereof) based on the system status trigger 312 (e.g., a lower or decreasing tire pressure), the decision ambiguity trigger 314 (e.g., regarding a location and/or maneuver outside of a distance threshold), a safe-to-travel status, or a combination thereof.” [0056]), where Patel discloses a vehicle control system that may make a minimum risk maneuver decision, which includes stopping of the vehicle after deceleration or stopping of the vehicle, based on an object located in the path of travel of the vehicle in combination with a failure of a sensor. The failure of the sensor can lead to inability of the system to obtain state information of the vehicle. This is comparable to an event of an appearance of an obstacle in the path of the vehicle that occurs when the vehicle control system is unable to obtain state information of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, teaches wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event. (“The braking release means releases the emergency braking control when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the predetermined safety level from the start of the emergency braking control by the braking start means until the vehicle stops, and when the travel environment conditions have been established in accordance with the determination results by the travel environment determination means.” Noto [0009], and FIG. 3 and paragraph [0010]), discloses transitioning to a stop mode which is a minimum risk maneuver mode, as in the instant specifications, the minimum risk maneuver mode is described as (“In this regard, the minimum risk maneuver may include the stopping after the decelerating or the stopping after the lane change to the shoulder” instant specifications [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Noto et al., as modified, in view of Patel et al. to disclose the vehicle event including an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 2 , Noto et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained is caused by contamination of the sensor or a malfunction of the sensor. Patel et al. teaches an autonomous vehicle operation wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained because of contamination of the sensor or a malfunction of the sensor (Paragraph [0074] teaches an event where a determination is made, identifying a fail-safe at block 506 (e.g., representing conditions associated with more immediate safety risks, such as sensor obstruction or failure). It is understood that failure of a sensor can prevent the processor from obtaining state information of the vehicle.). 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. as modified by Zhang et al. to include an event occurring when the sensor has malfunctioned or contamination has occurred as taught by Patel et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 3 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to determine whether a pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed (The task scheduling apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. (paragraphs [0006] and [0039]) tracks events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. An event, such as appearance of an obstacle, can happen at any time including before emergency brake is performed. This system maintains a schedule to respond to these events based on priority. Therefore, if an event, such as a pre-stored vehicle event, has happened before another event, such as emergency braking, happens the scheduling system will know about its existence and can determine that this event exists after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 4 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the vehicle event has occurred when the pre-stored vehicle event does not exist after the emergency braking is performed (We interpret Claim 4 of instant application to mean that the processor, or control system, is capable of taking into account an event that happens after emergency brake is performed. The task scheduling apparatus disclosed by Zhang et al. (paragraphs [0006] and [0039]) tracks events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. An event, such as appearance of an obstacle, can happen at any time including after emergency brake is performed. This system maintains a schedule to respond to these events based on priority. Therefore, if an event happens after another event, such as emergency braking, happens the scheduling system can determine that this event has occurred after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 5 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the risk of collision has been resolved (Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus in Claim 1 of Noto et al. comprising "...a braking release process for releasing the emergency braking control when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the predetermined safety level …".) when the processor concludes that the pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed (Zhang et al. paragraphs [0006] and [0039] teach an apparatus capable of a scheduling system that tracks events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. Therefore, the scheduling system can conclude that a pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 6 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the processor is configured to maintain the emergency braking when the processor concludes that the risk of collision has not been resolved (Claim 1 of Noto et al. and flowchart shown in FIG 3 at S140 of Noto et al. teach an apparatus capable of initiating emergency brake in response to likelihood of collision being high while decision block S150 of FIG 3 monitors likelihood of collision and maintains emergency brake as long as risk of collision has not been resolved.). Regarding claim 8 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the minimum risk maneuver includes stopping of the vehicle after decelerating or stopping of the vehicle after a lane change to a shoulder (Noto et al. in Claim 1 and FIG. 3 teaches an emergency braking apparatus which may remain effective until the vehicle stops as further clarified: “[0056] in S180, the general control unit 72 outputs the instructions for continuing the emergency braking control to the collision avoidance braking unit 74, and this process is terminated. In this case, the collision avoidance braking unit 74 maintains the operation of the automatic emergency braking in the brake system 62 by transmitting the control value in accordance with the operation maintenance of the automatic emergency braking to the longitudinal direction operation ECU5 via the on-vehicle LAN 40. Therefore, the operation of the automatic emergency braking is maintained until the own vehicle stops.” The stopping would occur post deceleration.). Regarding claim 9 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches an apparatus wherein the sensor includes at least one of an image sensor, a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), an accelerator pedal sensor, an emergency light sensor, a door sensor, a rain sensor, an air pressure sensor, a belt sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a yaw rate sensor, a cylinder pressure sensor, a steering wheel sensor, or any combination of each sensor (Noto et al. paragraph [0024]: “For example, various camera sensors 21, a radar sensor 22, a yaw rate sensor 23, a vehicle speed sensor 24 and the like may be included as the various sensors 20. The detection information and/or the identification information of the various sensors 20 are output/transmitted to the driving support controller 10 and the various ECU 50.” The camera sensor acts as an image sensor.). Regarding claim 10 , Noto et al., as modified by Zhang et al., does not explicitly teach an apparatus wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle. Patel et al. teaches an apparatus for controlling driving of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle (paragraph [0074] teaches an event which can be associated with "a sensor obstruction or failure", the sensor being a device within the vehicle.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Noto et al. as modified by Zhang et al. wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle as taught by Patel et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 11 , Noto et al., as modified, discloses a method for controlling driving of a vehicle (Noto et al. Fig. 1 and paragraph [0023] disclose a driving support method for controlling driving of a vehicle.); the method comprising: obtaining, by a sensor (FIG 1. blocks (21), (22), (23) and (24) disclose sensors.), state information of the vehicle during autonomous driving of the vehicle (Paragraph [0024] discloses the sensors obtaining state information of the vehicle.); performing, by a processor connected to the sensor (FIG 1. block (10) discloses a processor connected to sensors shown in blocks (21), (22), (23) and (24).), emergency braking of the vehicle when a risk of collision of the vehicle is predicted based on the obtained state information of the vehicle (Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0039], [0047]-[0059] disclose emergency braking based on obtained state information.). Noto et al. does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to: store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed; Zhang et al. teaches a task scheduling system for a vehicle including a processor that is configured to: store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed (paragraph [0039] discloses scheduling of events and executing the response to the events in order of priority which requires storing of events.); 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. to store a vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed; as taught by Zhang et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose the processor configured to: transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event , without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored ; and control to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved ; Lee et al., teaches transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event, without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored; (“The system request switching sub-step S143 is for judging whether or not the environmental condition data conforms to a system controlling threshold by the controlling device 140. It is assumed that the driving mode is originally in an autonomous driving mode ADM, and the controlling device 140 controls the vehicle according to the environmental condition data. When the environmental condition data conforms to the system controlling threshold, the driving mode maintains the autonomous driving mode ADM. When the environmental condition data doesn't conform to the system controlling threshold, the driving mode is switched from the autonomous driving mode ADM to a manual driving mode MDM.” [0024], “The driver safety takeover mechanism represents that the vehicle is taken over by the driver, and the driving mode is changed to the manual driving mode MDM” [0025], “In FIG. 7, the deciding method 200e of the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 further includes the autonomous emergency braking sub-step S149 for judging whether or not an emergency braking condition is detected by a brake sensor of a driver intervening detecting device 130. The emergency braking condition represents that the driver steps on the brake pedal very rapidly, and must not meet the system controlling threshold and security condition threshold. Therefore, when the emergency braking condition is detected by the brake sensor, the driving mode is forced to switch from the autonomous driving mode ADM to a manual driving mode MDM by the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100.” [0030]), where the vehicle transitions to a driving mode without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored. In combination with the automatic vehicle emergency brake of Zhang, this shows the transition to a driving mode that is not an autonomous driving mode from before the emergency brake is performed. Lee et al., teaches controlling the vehicle to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved, (“The driver intervening detecting sub-step S142 is for sensing a degree of an intervention of a driver to generate a driver intervening data by a driver intervening detecting device 130. The controlling device 140 stores a security condition threshold and a driver intervening threshold. The controlling device 140 judges whether or not the environmental condition data and the driver intervening data conform to the security condition threshold and the driver intervening threshold, respectively. If the driver intervention doesn't exceed a predetermined degree, the driving mode of the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 maintains the autonomous driving mode ADM… After the driver intervention being lower than the predetermined degree in the predetermined time, the interactive autonomous safe driving system 100 is changed back to the original default settings in autonomous driving mode ADM.” [0029]), where after an action such as braking is done, and it is determined that the security degree is below a threshold, in which there would be no collision risk, the vehicle returns to autonomous driving mode. 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. to transition to a driving mode for resolving the vehicle event, without transitioning to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the risk of collision is resolved after the vehicle event is stored; and control to return to the autonomous driving mode, which is a driving mode before the emergency braking is performed, when the vehicle event is not occurred after the risk of collision is resolved; as taught by Zhang et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, does not teach an apparatus wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained and wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event. Patel et al. teaches an apparatus wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained (paragraph (56) discloses a vehicle control system that may make a decision based on an object located in the path of travel of the vehicle in combination with a failure of a sensor. The decision, which is part of the main inventive concept of Patel et al., is related to the task of a pre-handover maneuver of an autonomous vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle needs assistance in driving. Patel states (“The autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the pre-handover maneuver 330 autonomously based on the current maneuvering parameters 120 and the handover trigger. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the immediate stop 338 regardless of the vehicle's location based on the system status trigger 312, an absence of a safe-to-travel determination (e.g., corresponding to an object located in the path of travel and within a threshold distance), specific types or instances of component or software errors or failures, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 102 can execute the speed reduction 336 and slow the vehicle speed below a normal-operating speed (e.g., slower than the speed limit, the traffic flowrate, speed calculated without considering the handover trigger, or a combination thereof) based on the system status trigger 312 (e.g., a lower or decreasing tire pressure), the decision ambiguity trigger 314 (e.g., regarding a location and/or maneuver outside of a distance threshold), a safe-to-travel status, or a combination thereof.” [0056]), where Patel discloses a vehicle control system that may make a minimum risk maneuver decision, which includes stopping of the vehicle after deceleration or stopping of the vehicle, based on an object located in the path of travel of the vehicle in combination with a failure of a sensor. The failure of the sensor can lead to inability of the system to obtain state information of the vehicle. This is comparable to an event of an appearance of an obstacle in the path of the vehicle that occurs when the vehicle control system is unable to obtain state information of the vehicle. Noto et al., as modified, teaches wherein the driving mode for resolving the vehicle event includes a minimum risk maneuver mode performed during the vehicle event. (“The braking release means releases the emergency braking control when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the predetermined safety level from the start of the emergency braking control by the braking start means until the vehicle stops, and when the travel environment conditions have been established in accordance with the determination results by the travel environment determination means.” Noto [0009], and FIG. 3 and paragraph [0010]), discloses transitioning to a stop mode which is a minimum risk maneuver mode, as in the instant specifications, the minimum risk maneuver mode is described as (“In this regard, the minimum risk maneuver may include the stopping after the decelerating or the stopping after the lane change to the shoulder” instant specifications [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Noto et al., as modified, in view of Patel et al. to disclose the vehicle event including an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 12 , Noto et al., as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained is caused by contamination of the sensor or a malfunction of the sensor. Patel et al. teaches an autonomous vehicle operation wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring when the state information of the vehicle is not able to be obtained because of contamination of the sensor or a malfunction of the sensor (Paragraph [0074] teaches an event where a determination is made, identifying a fail-safe at block 506 (e.g., representing conditions associated with more immediate safety risks, such as sensor obstruction or failure). It is understood that failure of a sensor can prevent the processor from obtaining state information of the vehicle.). 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 the apparatus of Noto et al. as modified by Zhang et al. to include an event occurring when the sensor has malfunctioned or contamination has occurred as taught by Patel et al. in order to yield the predictable result of improving the overall safety of the vehicle. Regarding claim 13 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method including: determining, by the processor, whether a pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed (The task scheduling method disclosed by Zhang et al. (paragraphs [0006] and [0039]) tracks events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. An event, such as appearance of an obstacle, can happen at any time including before emergency brake is performed. This system maintains a schedule to respond to these events based on priority. Therefore, if an event, such as a pre-stored vehicle event, has happened before another event, such as emergency braking, happens the scheduling system will know about its existence and can determine that this event exists after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 14 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method for determining, by the processor, whether the vehicle event has occurred when the pre-stored vehicle event does not exist after the emergency braking is performed. (We interpret Claim 14 of instant application to mean that the method is capable of taking into account an event that happens after emergency brake is performed. The task scheduling method disclosed by Zhang et al. (paragraphs [0006] and [0039]) tracks events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. An event, such as appearance of an obstacle, can happen at any time including after emergency brake is performed. This system maintains a schedule to respond to these events based on priority. Therefore, if an event happens after another event, such as emergency braking, happens the scheduling system can determine that this event has occurred after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 15 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method for determining, by the processor, whether the risk of collision has been resolved (Noto et al. teaches a method in Claim 14 comprising "...a braking release process for releasing the emergency braking control when the likelihood of a collision dropped to the predetermined safety level …".) when the processor concludes that the pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed (Zhang et al. paragraphs [0006] and [0039] teach a method capable of tracking events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. Therefore, the scheduling system can conclude that a pre-stored vehicle event exists after the emergency braking is performed.). Regarding claim 16 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method for maintaining, by the processor, the emergency braking when the processor concludes that the risk of collision has not been resolved (Noto et al. flowchart shown in FIG 3 at S140 teach a method capable of initiating emergency brake in response to likelihood of collision being high while decision block S150 of FIG 3 monitors likelihood of collision and maintains emergency brake as long as risk of collision has not been resolved.). Regarding claim 17 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method wherein the vehicle event is stored when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed (Zhang et al. paragraphs [0006] and [0039] teach a method capable of scheduling events, such as appearance of an obstacle, that can happen at any time. Scheduling of events requires storing them. Therefore, the scheduling system can store the vehicle event when the vehicle event occurs after the emergency braking is performed), wherein a driving mode of the vehicle transitions to a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode when the risk of collision is resolved (Noto et al. Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0009] and [0010] disclose transitioning to a stop mode when risk of collision is resolved. A stop mode is a MRM mode.). Regarding claim 18 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method wherein the minimum risk maneuver includes stopping of the vehicle after decelerating or stopping of the vehicle after a lane change to a shoulder (Noto et al. in FIG. 3 teaches an emergency braking method which may remain effective until the vehicle stops after decelerating as further clarified: “[0056] in S180, the general control unit 72 outputs the instructions for continuing the emergency braking control to the collision avoidance braking unit 74, and this process is terminated. In this case, the collision avoidance braking unit 74 maintains the operation of the automatic emergency braking in the brake system 62 by transmitting the control value in accordance with the operation maintenance of the automatic emergency braking to the longitudinal direction operation ECU5 via the on-vehicle LAN 40. Therefore, the operation of the automatic emergency braking is maintained until the own vehicle stops.” The stopping would occur post deceleration.). Regarding claim 19 , Noto et al., as modified, teaches a method wherein the sensor includes at least one of an image sensor, a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), an accelerator pedal sensor, an emergency light sensor, a door sensor, a rain sensor, an air pressure sensor, a belt sensor, a wheel speed sensor, a yaw rate sensor, a cylinder pressure sensor, a steering wheel sensor, or any combination of each sensor (Noto et al. paragraph [0024]: “For example, various camera sensors 21, a radar sensor 22, a yaw rate sensor 23, a vehicle speed sensor 24 and the like may be included as the various sensors 20. The detection information and/or the identification information of the various sensors 20 are output/transmitted to the driving support controller 10 and the various ECU 50.” The camera sensor acts as an image sensor.). Regarding claim 20 , Noto et al., as modified by Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach a method wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle. Patel et al. teaches a method for controlling driving of a vehicle, wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle (Paragraph [0074] teaches an event which can be associated with "a sensor obstruction or failure", the sensor being a device within the vehicle.). 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 the method of Noto et al. as modified by Zhang et al. wherein the vehicle event includes an event occurring because of a failure of a device within the vehicle as taught by Patel et al in order to yield the predictable result of improving safety of the vehicle. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm. 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 at (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. /CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/101,375 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights