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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the smart cruise control device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this feature as the previous recitations (a smart cruise control device) was canceled.
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.
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) 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) in view of Sweeney (US20200049517A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu teaches;
A control method for safe transition to a manual driving mode in a vehicle (taught as a driving switch processing to make a switch between automated and manual driving, paragraph 0018, controlled by a driving control apparatus, element 1), the control method comprising:
setting, by a controller, setting conditions for transition to the manual driving mode (taught as a switch requirement, conditions to be satisfied for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
determining, by the controller, whether there is a request of a driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as determining whether the driver has requested a switch to manual driving, paragraph 0081);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as detecting that the vehicle travels straight, paragraph 0048), when the controller concludes that there is the request of the driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as detecting whether a switch requirement for permitting a switch is satisfied, paragraph 0048);
controlling, by the controller, a current speed of the vehicle at a driving speed set by the driver which is one of the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode, when the vehicle is driving straight (taught as setting the switch driving characteristics, including setting the vehicle speed [such as setting it lower during a switch], paragraph 0045);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is in a state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting whether the switch requirements are fulfilled for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
notifying, by the controller, that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as informing the occupant that automated driving is ending, paragraph 0051); and
switching, by the controller, a driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052), after the notification (taught as only continuing automated driving using the switch driving characteristics during a predetermined period of time before fully transitioning, paragraph 0083),
wherein, in the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle has obtained safe distances from vehicles driving ahead (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, paragraph 0048) and behind the vehicle and whether the driving speed set by the driver is maintained is performed first (taught as a switch requirement including whether the vehicle travels at a constant speed, paragraph 0048),
wherein when the vehicle is determined to not be able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible includes determining whether the vehicle is able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing a current driving lane of the vehicle to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049, wherein performing the action would indicate that the vehicle considers it safe to do so) and
when the controller concludes that the vehicle cannot obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane(taught as adjusting driving characteristics to satisfy the switch requirements, paragraph 0049, but does not perform a switch if the conditions are not satisfied).
While a predetermined time period in “is performed for a first predetermined time period“ is not explicitly taught, the methodology and flowchart (Fig 1) in Hiramatsu suggests that there is an order of operations, e.g. make announcement (which naturally takes an amount of time to perform/finish an announcement, such as with an audio message in paragraph 0051), then make the transition, which would indicate, or strongly suggest, a time period between the presented steps. This would serve to allow the user/driver time to prepare for the transition, and ensure a smooth and safe transition between driving modes, and promote the transition goals taught in Hiramatsu to prevent acceleration, deceleration, braking or steering operations from having to be performed immediately after the transition and allow the driver to start manual control feeling secure (paragraph 0048).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach;
guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal.
Sweeny teaches; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal (taught as, providing a feedback response upon receiving a request, and when unable to exactly fulfill it based on the operation parameters, such as a stopping at a specific location, further suggesting to the user suggested destinations different from the original one requested, paragraph 0054, Fig 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Sweeney in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest specifically guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Sweeney, where a system, upon receiving a request and being unable to exactly fulfill it, suggests alternative locations to fulfill it (such as with alternative, nearby destinations to stop at). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 2, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode include the driving speed set by the driver of the vehicle (taught as a condition including that the vehicle is driving at a constant speed, paragraph 0048, where settings can be set by an occupant, paragraph 0046), and
whether to activate the smart cruise control device after having switched to the manual driving mode (taught as switch driving characteristics, including setting a vehicle speed [such as setting it lower than automated driving], paragraph 0045, which should be a constant speed as per the switch requirement conditions, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
determining, by the controller, whether the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode are changed before the request for the transition to the manual driving mode is made (taught as the automated driving characteristic setter setting driving characteristics used, paragraph 0027, and a switch driving characteristics setter to set driving characteristics during a transition from automated to manual driving, which can be adjusted by an occupant to be applied, paragraph 0029, and can involve attributes of the occupant, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
when the vehicle is determined to be turning as a result of the determining of whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as determining a steering angle of the vehicle, paragraph 0048),
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is able to drive straight within a second predetermined time period (taught as, when the switch requirements are not immediately met, performing control to make them satisfy the switch requirements, and further modifying the requirements such that a switch to manual control can be made when the travel conditions do not change for a predetermined period of time, paragraph 0049, and if not, a switch would not be performed).
Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
when the vehicle is determined to not be able to drive straight within the second predetermined time period, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, when the switch requirements are not immediately met, performing control to make them satisfy the switch requirements, and further modifying the requirements such that a switch to manual control can be made when the travel conditions do not change for a predetermined period of time, paragraph 0049, and if not, a switch would not be performed).
Regarding claim 7, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to have obtained the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle and the driving speed set by the driver is determined to be maintained (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the driver is notified by the controller that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to be able to obtain the safe distances from vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049), the driver is notified that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to be being parked or stopped instead of being driving as a result of the determining of whether the vehicle is driving, the vehicle is determined by the controller to be in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (implied in the switch requirement including a constant speed, paragraph 0048, as a constant speed can be 0 [indicating parked or stopped]), and the driver is notified by the controller that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 16, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
when the driver has not selected another safe position in the current driving route or the safe position in another driving route, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle.
Sweeney teaches; when the driver has not selected another safe position in the current driving route or the safe position in another driving route, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, if the vehicle is unable to follow the user selection due to the location being unavailable/not safe, suggesting alternatives, paragraph 0054 while continuing instructions for the autonomous vehicle control, paragraph 0058 see Fig 2 208-214).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Sweeney in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest specifically guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Sweeney, where a system, upon receiving a request and being unable to exactly fulfill it, suggests alternative locations to fulfill it (such as with alternative, nearby destinations to stop at). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 17, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including: when the driver has selected another safe position in the current driving route or another safe position in another driving route, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to move to the position selected by the driver.
Sweeney teaches; when the driver has selected another safe position in the current driving route or another safe position in another driving route, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to move to the position selected by the drive (taught as, upon receiving a request, searching and presenting at least one available stopping area, paragraph 0047, having the user select a recommended area or space, paragraph 0058, and having the vehicle move to the selected location, paragraph 0058).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Sweeney in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest specifically guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Sweeney, where a system, upon receiving a request and being unable to exactly fulfill it, suggests alternative locations to fulfill it (such as with alternative, nearby destinations to stop at). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 18, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
after the vehicle has moved to the selected position, returning to the determining of whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight by the controller (taught as checking for the switch requirements, including stop [constant velocity of 0], driving straight [steering angle less than a threshold] etc. paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 19, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; is recorded (taught as executing particular programs to operate the driving control apparatus, paragraph 0031).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) as modified by Sweeney (US20200049517A1) and further in view of Guo (US20210206395A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
after notifying that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within a third predetermined time period.
Guo teaches; after notifying that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting a mode change request and presenting a mode change request confirmation, paragraph 0128), determining, by the controller, whether the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within a third predetermined time period (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128; canceling the request is equivalent to aborting or failing to confirm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a confirmation indication for a mode change as taught by Guo in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve safety. Such confirmation/verification prevents accidental activation of features [accidently and unknowingly switching from autonomous to manual driving, for example, could be dangerous].
Regarding claim 12, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney and Guo teaches;
The control method of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
when the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle.
Guo teaches; when the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128; canceling the request is equivalent to aborting or failing to confirm), notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible (taught as, after aborting a mode transition, notify the driving system, paragraph 0140, and the driver, paragraph 0141) and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128, indicating that in the case that no confirmation is received or the request is denied, the process does not proceed and does not transition to manual mode).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a confirmation indication for a mode change as taught by Guo in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve safety. Such confirmation/verification prevents accidental activation of features [accidently and unknowingly switching from autonomous to manual driving, for example, could be dangerous].
Regarding claim 13, Hiramatsu as modified by Sweeney and Guo teaches;
The control method of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the driver has not canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period, the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode is performed by the controller (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) in view of Wang (US20180239352A1) and Sweeney (US20200049517A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hiramatsu teaches;
A control method for safe transition to a manual driving mode in a vehicle (taught as a driving switch processing to make a switch between automated and manual driving, paragraph 0018, controlled by a driving control apparatus, element 1), the control method comprising:
setting, by a controller, setting conditions for transition to the manual driving mode (taught as a switch requirement, conditions to be satisfied for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
determining, by the controller, whether there is a request of a driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as determining whether the driver has requested a switch to manual driving, paragraph 0081);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as detecting that the vehicle travels straight, paragraph 0048), when the controller concludes that there is the request of the driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as detecting whether a switch requirement for permitting a switch is satisfied, paragraph 0048);
controlling, by the controller, a current speed of the vehicle at a driving speed set by the driver which is one of the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode, when the vehicle is driving straight (taught as setting the switch driving characteristics, including setting the vehicle speed [such as setting it lower during a switch], paragraph 0045);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is in a state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting whether the switch requirements are fulfilled for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
notifying, by the controller, that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as informing the occupant that automated driving is ending, paragraph 0051); and
switching, by the controller, a driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052), after the notification (taught as only continuing automated driving using the switch driving characteristics during a predetermined period of time before fully transitioning, paragraph 0083),
wherein, in the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle has obtained safe distances from vehicles driving ahead (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, paragraph 0048) and behind the vehicle and whether the driving speed set by the driver is maintained is performed first (taught as a switch requirement including whether the vehicle travels at a constant speed, paragraph 0048),
wherein when the vehicle is determined to not be able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible includes determining whether the vehicle is able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing a current driving lane of the vehicle to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049, wherein performing the action would indicate that the vehicle considers it safe to do so) and
when the controller concludes that the vehicle cannot obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane(taught as adjusting driving characteristics to satisfy the switch requirements, paragraph 0049, but does not perform a switch if the conditions are not satisfied).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach;
wherein the control method further includes: when the controller concludes that a request to activate an operation of a smart cruise control device has been input as the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode after the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode by the controller, activating, by the controller, the operation of the smart cruise control device,
guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal.
Wang teaches; wherein the control method further includes: when the controller concludes that a request to activate an operation of a smart cruise control device has been input as the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode after the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode by the controller (taught as the user inputting a transition, paragraph 0038), activating, by the controller, the operation of the smart cruise control device (taught as shifting from a fully automated level to an assisted level of driving, shown in Fig 2, paragraph 0021, wherein assisted level includes a speed control mode like cruise control, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transitions from fully automated driving to assisted level driving, as taught by Wang, in the system taught by Hiramatsu, in order to improve user choice and comfort. Such system transitions, as taught by Wang, allows for easy and effective addressing of the many different conditions that are encountered by the vehicle (paragraph 0014), and further maintain a desired speed or behavior post control transition. As Hiramatsu desires to ease the transition on the user from fully automated driving to a lower level, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of Wang’s logic in accomplishing that by allowing for an intermediate state of automation, when possible, to maintain speed post transition and allow for the driver to focus on steering, for example.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal
Sweeny teaches; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal (taught as, providing a feedback response upon receiving a request, and when unable to exactly fulfill it based on the operation parameters, such as a stopping at a specific location, further suggesting to the user suggested destinations different from the original one requested, paragraph 0054, Fig 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Sweeney in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest specifically guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Sweeney, where a system, upon receiving a request and being unable to exactly fulfill it, suggests alternative locations to fulfill it (such as with alternative, nearby destinations to stop at). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Additionally,
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) in view of Lee (US20180147988A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hiramatsu teaches;
A control method for safe transition to a manual driving mode in a vehicle (taught as a driving switch processing to make a switch between automated and manual driving, paragraph 0018, controlled by a driving control apparatus, element 1), the control method comprising:
setting, by a controller, setting conditions for transition to the manual driving mode (taught as a switch requirement, conditions to be satisfied for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
determining, by the controller, whether there is a request of a driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as determining whether the driver has requested a switch to manual driving, paragraph 0081);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as detecting that the vehicle travels straight, paragraph 0048), when the controller concludes that there is the request of the driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as detecting whether a switch requirement for permitting a switch is satisfied, paragraph 0048);
controlling, by the controller, a current speed of the vehicle at a driving speed set by the driver which is one of the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode, when the vehicle is driving straight (taught as setting the switch driving characteristics, including setting the vehicle speed [such as setting it lower during a switch], paragraph 0045);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is in a state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting whether the switch requirements are fulfilled for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
notifying, by the controller, that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as informing the occupant that automated driving is ending, paragraph 0051); and
switching, by the controller, a driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052), after the notification (taught as only continuing automated driving using the switch driving characteristics during a predetermined period of time before fully transitioning, paragraph 0083),
wherein, in the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle has obtained safe distances from vehicles driving ahead (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, paragraph 0048) and behind the vehicle and whether the driving speed set by the driver is maintained is performed first (taught as a switch requirement including whether the vehicle travels at a constant speed, paragraph 0048),
wherein when the vehicle is determined to not be able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible includes determining whether the vehicle is able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing a current driving lane of the vehicle to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049, wherein performing the action would indicate that the vehicle considers it safe to do so) and
when the controller concludes that the vehicle cannot obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane(taught as adjusting driving characteristics to satisfy the switch requirements, paragraph 0049, but does not perform a switch if the conditions are not satisfied).
While a predetermined time period in “is performed for a first predetermined time period“ is not explicitly taught, the methodology and flowchart (Fig 1) in Hiramatsu suggests that there is an order of operations, e.g. make announcement (which naturally takes an amount of time to perform/finish an announcement, such as with an audio message in paragraph 0051), then make the transition, which would indicate, or strongly suggest, a time period between the presented steps. This would serve to allow the user/driver time to prepare for the transition, and ensure a smooth and safe transition between driving modes, and promote the transition goals taught in Hiramatsu to prevent acceleration, deceleration, braking or steering operations from having to be performed immediately after the transition and allow the driver to start manual control feeling secure (paragraph 0048).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach;
guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal.
Lee teaches; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal (taught as, determining an available stopping area based on the vehicle information, paragraph 0240, and further determining whether such stopping area exists, paragraph 0247, and further providing a notification to a user such as it not being able to stop at the point, paragraph 0358).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Lee in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Lee, where a system, upon receiving a request, suggests potential stop areas for selection (paragraph 0240). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 2, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode include the driving speed set by the driver of the vehicle (taught as a condition including that the vehicle is driving at a constant speed, paragraph 0048, where settings can be set by an occupant, paragraph 0046), and
whether to activate the smart cruise control device after having switched to the manual driving mode (taught as switch driving characteristics, including setting a vehicle speed [such as setting it lower than automated driving], paragraph 0045, which should be a constant speed as per the switch requirement conditions, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
determining, by the controller, whether the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode are changed before the request for the transition to the manual driving mode is made (taught as the automated driving characteristic setter setting driving characteristics used, paragraph 0027, and a switch driving characteristics setter to set driving characteristics during a transition from automated to manual driving, which can be adjusted by an occupant to be applied, paragraph 0029, and can involve attributes of the occupant, paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 4, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
when the vehicle is determined to be turning as a result of the determining of whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as determining a steering angle of the vehicle, paragraph 0048),
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is able to drive straight within a second predetermined time period (taught as, when the switch requirements are not immediately met, performing control to make them satisfy the switch requirements, and further modifying the requirements such that a switch to manual control can be made when the travel conditions do not change for a predetermined period of time, paragraph 0049, and if not, a switch would not be performed).
Regarding claim 5, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
when the vehicle is determined to not be able to drive straight within the second predetermined time period, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, when the switch requirements are not immediately met, performing control to make them satisfy the switch requirements, and further modifying the requirements such that a switch to manual control can be made when the travel conditions do not change for a predetermined period of time, paragraph 0049, and if not, a switch would not be performed).
Regarding claim 7, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to have obtained the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle and the driving speed set by the driver is determined to be maintained (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the driver is notified by the controller that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to be able to obtain the safe distances from vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049), the driver is notified that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 10, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the vehicle is determined to be being parked or stopped instead of being driving as a result of the determining of whether the vehicle is driving, the vehicle is determined by the controller to be in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (implied in the switch requirement including a constant speed, paragraph 0048, as a constant speed can be 0 [indicating parked or stopped]), and the driver is notified by the controller that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as, if the switch requirements are fulfilled, informing the occupant that autonomous driving is ending, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 16, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
when the driver has not selected another safe position in the current driving route or the safe position in another driving route, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle.
Lee teaches; when the driver has not selected another safe position in the current driving route or the safe position in another driving route, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, if the vehicle is unable to follow the user selection due to the location being unavailable/not safe, paragraph 0361, output a notification to a user that it is unable to do so, paragraph 0364).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Lee in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Lee, where a system, upon receiving a request, suggests potential stop areas for selection (paragraph 0240). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 17, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including: when the driver has selected another safe position in the current driving route or another safe position in another driving route, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to move to the position selected by the driver.
Lee teaches; when the driver has selected another safe position in the current driving route or another safe position in another driving route, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to move to the position selected by the drive (taught as, upon receiving a request, searching and presenting at least one available stopping area, paragraph 0240, having the user select a recommended area or space, paragraph 0295, and having the vehicle move to the selected location, paragraph 0296).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Lee in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Lee, where a system, upon receiving a request, suggests potential stop areas for selection (paragraph 0240). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Regarding claim 18, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; further including:
after the vehicle has moved to the selected position, returning to the determining of whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight by the controller (taught as checking for the switch requirements, including stop [constant velocity of 0], driving straight [steering angle less than a threshold] etc. paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 19, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; is recorded (taught as executing particular programs to operate the driving control apparatus, paragraph 0031).
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) as modified by Lee (US20180147988A1) and further in view of Guo (US20210206395A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee teaches;
The control method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
after notifying that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within a third predetermined time period.
Guo teaches; after notifying that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting a mode change request and presenting a mode change request confirmation, paragraph 0128), determining, by the controller, whether the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within a third predetermined time period (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128; canceling the request is equivalent to aborting or failing to confirm).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a confirmation indication for a mode change as taught by Guo in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve safety. Such confirmation/verification prevents accidental activation of features [accidently and unknowingly switching from autonomous to manual driving, for example, could be dangerous].
Regarding claim 12, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee and Guo teaches;
The control method of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach; further including:
when the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period, notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle.
Guo teaches; when the driver has canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128; canceling the request is equivalent to aborting or failing to confirm), notifying, by the controller, the driver that the transition to the manual driving mode is not possible (taught as, after aborting a mode transition, notify the driving system, paragraph 0140, and the driver, paragraph 0141) and maintaining the driving mode of the vehicle as an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle (taught as, upon detecting a mode change request, requesting user confirmation, paragraph 0128, indicating that in the case that no confirmation is received or the request is denied, the process does not proceed and does not transition to manual mode).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to require a confirmation indication for a mode change as taught by Guo in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve safety. Such confirmation/verification prevents accidental activation of features [accidently and unknowingly switching from autonomous to manual driving, for example, could be dangerous].
Regarding claim 13, Hiramatsu as modified by Lee and Guo teaches;
The control method of claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection). Hiramatsu further teaches; wherein, when the driver has not canceled the request for the transition to the manual driving mode within the third predetermined time period, the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode is performed by the controller (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US20190295417A1) in view of Wang (US20180239352A1) and Sweeney (US20200049517A1).
Regarding claim 20, Hiramatsu teaches;
A control method for safe transition to a manual driving mode in a vehicle (taught as a driving switch processing to make a switch between automated and manual driving, paragraph 0018, controlled by a driving control apparatus, element 1), the control method comprising:
setting, by a controller, setting conditions for transition to the manual driving mode (taught as a switch requirement, conditions to be satisfied for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
determining, by the controller, whether there is a request of a driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as determining whether the driver has requested a switch to manual driving, paragraph 0081);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is driving and whether the vehicle is driving straight (taught as detecting that the vehicle travels straight, paragraph 0048), when the controller concludes that there is the request of the driver for the transition to the manual driving mode (taught as detecting whether a switch requirement for permitting a switch is satisfied, paragraph 0048);
controlling, by the controller, a current speed of the vehicle at a driving speed set by the driver which is one of the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode, when the vehicle is driving straight (taught as setting the switch driving characteristics, including setting the vehicle speed [such as setting it lower during a switch], paragraph 0045);
determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle is in a state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as detecting whether the switch requirements are fulfilled for a safe switch, paragraph 0048);
notifying, by the controller, that the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible (taught as informing the occupant that automated driving is ending, paragraph 0051); and
switching, by the controller, a driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode (taught as ending the automated driving and switching to manual driving, paragraph 0052), after the notification (taught as only continuing automated driving using the switch driving characteristics during a predetermined period of time before fully transitioning, paragraph 0083),
wherein, in the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible, determining, by the controller, whether the vehicle has obtained safe distances from vehicles driving ahead (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, paragraph 0048) and behind the vehicle and whether the driving speed set by the driver is maintained is performed first (taught as a switch requirement including whether the vehicle travels at a constant speed, paragraph 0048),
wherein when the vehicle is determined to not be able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle (taught as a switch requirement including that no traveling or parked vehicle is within a predetermined range from the [host] vehicle, and that a constant speed is maintained, paragraph 0048), the determining of whether the vehicle is in the state in which the safe transition to the manual driving mode is possible includes determining whether the vehicle is able to obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing a current driving lane of the vehicle to another driving lane (taught as changing travel conditions, such as speed and inter-vehicular distances by adjusting controls or switching lanes, to allow the driver to take over, paragraph 0049, wherein performing the action would indicate that the vehicle considers it safe to do so) and
when the controller concludes that the vehicle cannot obtain the safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind the vehicle by changing the current driving lane to another driving lane(taught as adjusting driving characteristics to satisfy the switch requirements, paragraph 0049, but does not perform a switch if the conditions are not satisfied).
However, Hiramatsu does not explicitly teach;
wherein the control method further includes: when the controller concludes that a request to activate an operation of a smart cruise control device has been input as the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode after the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode by the controller, activating, by the controller, the operation of the smart cruise control device,
guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal.
Wang teaches; wherein the control method further includes: when the controller concludes that a request to activate an operation of a smart cruise control device has been input as the setting conditions for the transition to the manual driving mode after the transition of the driving mode of the vehicle to the manual driving mode by the controller (taught as the user inputting a transition, paragraph 0038), activating, by the controller, the operation of the smart cruise control device (taught as shifting from a fully automated level to an assisted level of driving, shown in Fig 2, paragraph 0021, wherein assisted level includes a speed control mode like cruise control, paragraph 0036).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transitions from fully automated driving to assisted level driving, as taught by Wang, in the system taught by Hiramatsu, in order to improve user choice and comfort. Such system transitions, as taught by Wang, allows for easy and effective addressing of the many different conditions that are encountered by the vehicle (paragraph 0014), and further maintain a desired speed or behavior post control transition. As Hiramatsu desires to ease the transition on the user from fully automated driving to a lower level, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of Wang’s logic in accomplishing that by allowing for an intermediate state of automation, when possible, to maintain speed post transition and allow for the driver to focus on steering, for example.
However, Wang does not explicitly teach; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal
Lee teaches; guiding, by the controller, the driver to select another safe position in the current driving route of the vehicle or a safe position in another driving route using a warning signal (taught as, determining an available stopping area based on the vehicle information, paragraph 0240, and further determining whether such stopping area exists, paragraph 0247, and further providing a notification to a user, such as that it is unable to stop, paragraph 0358).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stop suggestions as taught by Lee in the system taught by Hiramatsu in order to improve usability. Hiramatsu does teach attempting to move or change the current travel conditions to safely perform a switch so the driver can take over (paragraph 0049), but does not suggest guiding the user to select a location to perform the switch when it concludes a switch cannot be performed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in such a situation that the switch requirements cannot be currently satisfied, a safe way to switch would be at a stop point, such that the switch requirements can be satisfied (paragraph 0048). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to inventions like Lee, where a system, upon receiving a request, suggests potential stop areas for selection (paragraph 0240). Such a feature allows for a user to request a stop and allow the autonomous vehicle to execute a safe stop, which in the case of Hiramatsu, would allow for a switch of control modes safely.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks that the prior art does not effectively teach the amended material of claim 1 (former claim 15).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to be arguing the rejection piecemeal, as Hiramatsu is relied on to teach detecting the condition involving the determination that it cannot obtain safe distances from the vehicles driving ahead and behind (paragraph 0049). Lee is relied on to further suggest the active guidance step to get the user to select a position to stop (paragraphs 0240), such that the stop position fulfills certain criteria (paragraph 0247) which includes size, distance, shape etc. To reiterate, Hiramatsu teaches stopping a maneuver in response to the determination, and Lee further teaches indicating stopping locations.
To further clarify this argument, the examiner presents an additional rejection in regards to Hiramatsu in view of Sweeney, which should more clearly identify the condition that, once a request is failed or unable to be performed, the user being presented with alternatives to fulfill the request intent, in the manner of selecting a stopping destination (such as in Fig 2, paragraph 0054). As the claims only require a safe position on an alternative route for switchover, and a stopped location is seen to be a safe place to transition to manual mode, such action is seen to fulfil the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as written.
The examiner tentatively suggests further clarifying in the claim language that selecting another safe position would, for example, still be in route/motion [to preclude the pull over/emergency pull over in response to a failed handoff], to overcome this argument.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that based on claim 1’s allowability, dependent claims 2-5, 7, 13, and 16-19 are also allowable.
In light of the above rejection and argument, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further handoff to manual requests and behavior during the transition; US20210229706A1, US20190064801A1
For further steering angle considerations for handoff; US20180362043A1, US20220306187A1
For further checking user requests and presenting alternative actions to fulfill them; US10681513B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662