DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE filed 01/21/2026 in which claim 1, 5 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no rationale to modify Sugano in view of Jardine to teach "a condition in which the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder continuously for a predetermined distance or a predetermined time.”
First, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Sugano is directed to a vehicle stop support system for supporting vehicle stop in an emergency condition with can be combined with the control system of Jardin to stop in the case of a driver emergency, and distance limit as taught by Jardine (see Jardine [0060]) which would reduce disruption to other road users and (see Jardine [0251]) enable road users to smoothly enter their preferred lanes as described below.
Second, the Examiner respectfully traverses the argument above because Jardin discusses in [0069] “determine a target stop location corresponding to one of: a hard shoulder; an emergency refuge area; or a layby” and in [0503] conditions whereby the host vehicle “must stop at least partially within a lane, in response to an internal hazard … and cause control of a direction of the host vehicle to cause the host vehicle to stop in a position laterally offset from a centre of the lane”. Jardin teaches monitoring the lane and lateral offset relative to road edges/shoulder and deciding when a stop is required in that region. [0069] of Jardin also discloses that the control system may determine the host vehicle is in a lane where stopping is prohibited except in emergencies, and then plan a lane change or stop accordingly. Therefore, Jardin teaches detecting that the vehicle is adjacent to the shoulder (i.e., that lane next to a shoulder) and essentially “operating in that lane” and then making a decision. As mentioned above Jardin describes that when the host vehicle must stop (for internal hazard or fault) the system determines a “target stop location … hard shoulder / emergency refuge area / layby” and may perform at least a lane change from a first lane to a second lane while stopping. Jardin distinguishes between different autonomous-mode functions: e.g., “the first maneuver may comprise a lane change … the second maneuver may comprise following at least part of a curve on a road … Combining the first maneuver and the second maneuver may comprise delaying or advancing…” See [0097]. This supports the concept of selecting from multiple driving plans (plan 1 vs plan 2) depending on conditions, and then executing a stop. Jardine discloses lane and shoulder recognition and ego-lane assignment, including the lane adjacent to the shoulder. Therefore, Jardine teaches a condition in which the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder continuously for a predetermined distance or a predetermined time.
Applicant further alleges that Sugano and Jardine, taken alone or in combination, are silent with regard to "wherein the processor is further configured to: create a third driving plan in which the vehicle is moved to the shoulder side in the traffic lane in which the vehicle is traveling when it is assessed that there is a problem with the driver; execute the third driving plan; and after executing the third driving plan, create the first driving plan or the second driving plan according to the assessment of whether the predetermined condition has been met," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 5 and 6.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Sugano teaches creating a third plan because the reference discloses the acceleration estimation part “searches a course to each of the stop point candidates and determine[s] a vehicle speed pattern” for traveling to each candidate (this is the system creating per‑candidate driving plans / trajectories and speed profiles) (¶[0058], ¶[0073]). The reference repeatedly describes that the system detects multiple stop point candidates, evaluates them, and determines how the vehicle would travel to each, i.e., it generates alternate driving plans to reach different candidates (¶[0055]–[0059], ¶[0070]–[0075]) and further Sugano teaches in ¶[0068]–[0069] that the ECU (processor) detects a driver abnormality via the abnormality detection part. Further in FIG. 3, ¶[0064], the stop point is set in the road shoulder when the vehicle is already in the cruising lane (the lane bordering the shoulder and the vehicle can also remain in its lane if that’s the safest stop point; Sugano also describes moving “forwardly and obliquely leftwardly” toward the shoulder when the target stop point is in the shoulder (¶[0064]–[0065]). Sugano shows a pattern where the stop point is the road shoulder and describes the vehicle moving obliquely leftward from its cruising lane into the road shoulder to stop (the “second pattern”) (¶[0063]–[0065], Fig. 3). The vehicle control part uses camera-detected lane demarcation and electric power steering commands to effect lane keeping and the lateral move into the shoulder (¶[0060], ¶[0064]–[0065]). In other words, Sugano explicitly discloses a planned maneuver that keeps the vehicle in its traffic lane while moving toward/into the shoulder side and stopping there.
Therefore Sugano teaches "wherein the processor is further configured to: create a third driving plan in which the vehicle is moved to the shoulder side in the traffic lane in which the vehicle is traveling when it is assessed that there is a problem with the driver; execute the third driving plan; and after executing the third driving plan, create the first driving plan or the second driving plan according to the assessment of whether the predetermined condition has been met,"
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (US 20200070825 A1) in view of Fraser Jardine (US 20220135039 A1 – as cited in the information disclosure statement dated 05/01/2023) (hereinafter Jardine).
Regarding Claim 1,
Sugano disclose A drive planning device (see at least Sugano [Abs]) “Provided is a vehicle stop support system for supporting vehicle stop in an emergency condition…sets a stop point; and controls the vehicle to travel to the stop point and stop at the stop point.”
comprising: a processor configured to assess whether there is a problem with a driver,
(see at least Sugano [0050]) "In FIG. 1, each function of the ECU 5 is shown as a block. However, it should be understood that a software modules incorporated in the analog circuit or digital processor”; (see at least Sugano [0069]) "In step S2, the ECU 5 operates to determine whether or not the driver has a physical abnormality. Specifically, the ECU 5 operates to determine, based on a result of the detection in the step S1, whether or not the driver has a physical abnormality which causes the driver to become unable to drive the vehicle 2 safely.”
assess whether a predetermined condition has been met based on information for a surrounding environment of a vehicle, (see at least Sugano [0007]) “wherein the stop point setting part is operable to set, as the stop point, one of the plurality of stop point candidates which satisfies a condition”; (see at least Sugano [0062]) “FIGS. 2 to 4 show an environment where it is stipulated that any vehicle shall travel in the left lane, by law or regulation, like the Japanese traffic environment…The system 1 is operable, upon satisfaction of a given condition during traveling of the vehicle 2, to control the vehicle 2 to stop at a stop point SP on behalf of the driver, as an emergency measure.” where satisfying a given condition during traveling corresponds to an assessment of a predetermine condition being met based on a surrounding environment.
and determine a first target stopping location for stopping the vehicle on a shoulder in order to create a first driving plan in which the vehicle is moved to the first target stopping location
(see at least Sugano [0074]) "In step S6, the ECU 5 operates to narrow down the stop point candidates.”; (see at least Sugano [0086]) “In step S8, the ECU 5 operates to set a stop point. Specifically, the ECU 5 operates to set, among the stop point candidates narrowed down in the step S6, one stop point candidate…”; (see at least Sugano [0064]) "FIG. 3 shows a second pattern in which the stop point setting part 67 of the system 1 operates to set a road shoulder 83 of the road 8, as the stop point SP.” where setting one second pattern stop point from the narrowed candidates corresponds to a determining a stopping location on a road shoulder.
when it is assessed that the vehicle is traveling in a predetermined traffic lane and it is assessed that there is a problem with the driver, and the predetermined condition has been met, (see at least Sugano [0064]) “FIG. 3 shows a second pattern…Specifically, FIG. 3 shows a situation where a given condition is satisfied when the vehicle 2 is traveling in the cruising lane 82”; (see at least Sugano [0069]) "In step S2, the ECU 5 operates to determine whether or not the driver has a physical abnormality.”; (see at least Sugano [0073]) “ECU 5 operates to first search, based on a given algorithm, a course to each of the stop point candidates detected in the step S3, and determine a vehicle speed pattern of the vehicle 2 when the vehicle 2 travels along the course…based on a corresponding set of the determined course and vehicle speed pattern.” where a given (predetermined) condition is satisfied (has been met) when the vehicle is travelling in the cruising lane (traffic lane) and the driver has been determined to have a physical abnormality (problem).
or determine a second target stopping location for stopping the vehicle in the predetermined traffic lane in order to create a second driving plan in which the vehicle is moved to the second target stopping location (see at least Sugano [0063]) “FIG. 2 shows a first pattern in which the stop point setting part 67 (see FIG. 1) of the system 1 operates to set a point within the road 8, as the stop point SP. Specifically, FIG. 2 shows a situation where a given condition is satisfied when the vehicle 2 is traveling in the overtaking lane 81, and a point located on the overtaking lane 81 in the traveling direction of the vehicle 2 is set as the stop point SP” where the set point within the road is set (a second driving plan) as a stop location.
when it is assessed that the predetermined condition has not been met, (see at least Sugano [0007]) “wherein the stop point setting part is operable to set, as the stop point, one of the plurality of stop point candidates which satisfies a condition that the lateral acceleration estimated with respect thereto by the acceleration estimation part is equal to or less than the allowable lateral acceleration and which is lowest in terms of the rear-end collision risk.” where a stop point of the second driving plane in the same lane corresponds to the first stopping location not satisfying the allowable (predetermined) lateral acceleration condition.
wherein the processor is further configured to: create a third driving plan (¶[0058], ¶[0073]) in which the vehicle is moved to the shoulder side in the traffic lane in which the vehicle is traveling when it is assessed that there is a problem with the driver; (Sugano, [0064]-[0065]) execute the third driving plan; and after executing the third driving plan, create the first driving plan or the second driving plan according to the assessment of whether the predetermined condition has been met, (¶[0060], ¶[0064]–[0065])
Sugano fails to explicitly teach the predetermined condition being a condition in which the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder continuously for a predetermined distance or a predetermined time, and at least one other vehicle traveling the shoulder from behind the vehicle and approaching the vehicle is not detected and stop the vehicle based on the first driving plan or the second driving plan.
However, Jardine discloses (see [0069]) a control system including whether a predetermined condition has been met based on information for a surrounding environment of a vehicle, the predetermined condition being a condition in which the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder continuously for a predetermined distance or a predetermined time, and at least one other vehicle traveling the shoulder from behind the vehicle and approaching the vehicle is not detected and stop the vehicle based on the first driving plan or the second driving plan. (see at least Jardine [0069], [0097], [0503], [0519]) "Checking for a designated stopping location may comprise determining at least one constraint for when and/or where the host vehicle 10 must stop…The constraint may comprise a time and/or distance limit.”; (see at least Jardine [0251]) "The distance D may be sufficiently high for a given speed limit to enable road users to smoothly enter their preferred lanes”; (see at least Jardine [0252]) "the length of D may be a predetermined value.”
Therefore, Sugano teaches determining a first and second driving plan to a stopping location based on a predetermined driving lane and condition, while Jardine teaches controlling a predetermined distance D as a constraint for reaching the stopping location.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the driving plans when there is a problem with a driver, as taught by Sugano, with the stopping location constraint, as taught by Jardine, because the both inventions control a vehicle to stop in the case of a driver emergency, and distance limit as taught by Jardine would (see Jardine [0060]) reduce disruption to other road users and (see Jardine [0251]) enable road users to smoothly enter their preferred lanes.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Sugano teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Sugano teaches wherein the processor is further configured to create the first or second driving plan of the vehicle up until a predetermined time. (see at least Jardine [0509]) “the inhibition could comprise a limit on how much and/or for how long propulsive torque is available for stopping the host vehicle 10. The limit could comprise a time limit and/or a distance limit.”
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 5 recites a computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program for creating the driving plan to be performed by the drive planning device of claim 1.
Sugano further discloses (see [0049]) “The ECU 5 comprises an abnormality detection part 51…a stop point setting part 67, a vehicle control part 68, and a storage part 69.”; (see at least Sugano [0061]) "The storage part 69 is composed of, e.g., a non-volatile memory, and stores therein a variety of information. The information stored in the storage part 69 is read by the abnormality detection part 51 and others, and used for various calculations.”
Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected for reciting substantially similar limitations and for substantially similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 6 recites a method for performing the functions of the device of claim 1 above, and is rejected for reciting substantially similar limitations and for substantially similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified Sugano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsuhiko Sato (US 20210094575 A1 - as indicated in the Information Disclosure Statement dated 03 August, 2023) (hereinafter Sato).
Regarding Claim 2,
Sugano and Jardine in combination (hereinafter Modified Sugano) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Sugano fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to assess that the predetermined condition has not been met when the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder, and at least one other vehicle traveling the shoulder from behind the vehicle and approaching the vehicle is detected.
However, Sato discloses a vehicle driving control apparatus for emergency evacuation to a road shoulder when a driver cannot take over operation that teaches wherein the processor is further configured to assess that the predetermined condition has not been met when the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder, and at least one other vehicle traveling the shoulder from behind the vehicle and approaching the vehicle is detected.
(see at least Sato [0104]) "Whether an obstacle is on the road shoulder 50 is sensed to determine whether the vehicle can move to the road shoulder (step 123), and if it is determined to be able to so move, a road shoulder movement possible flag is set (step 124).”; (see at least Sato [0097]) "It is determined whether the lane position the vehicle is driving is the first driving lane 51 neighboring the road shoulder 50 (step 114).”; (see at least Sato [0104]) "Whether an obstacle is on the road shoulder 50 is sensed to determine whether the vehicle can move to the road shoulder (step 123), and if it is determined to be able to so move, a road shoulder movement possible flag is set (step 124).”
Therefore, Sato teaches detecting a vehicle traveling on the shoulder when the vehicle is driving in the lane neighboring the shoulder, and determines whether the vehicle has space to move to the shoulder based on a predicted future position of the detected vehicle (predicted traveling on the shoulder behind and approaching the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the vehicle stop support system as taught by Modified Sugano, with the automated lane change when there is no other vehicle in a predetermined area of neighboring lane as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both inventions are from the same field of endeavor for detection of driver abnormality and automated driving support.
One would be motivated to make this combination because during automated lane change operation when the driver is unable to operate the vehicle, the system as taught by Sato (see [0111]) “has advantages of preventing the sudden deceleration, sudden steering, unstable behavior of the vehicle, and sudden approach to other vehicles, caused by excessive override” of the vehicle driver, thereby increasing vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Sugano teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Sugano fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to assess that the predetermined condition has not been met when the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder, and at least one other object traveling the shoulder from behind the vehicle and approaching the vehicle is detected.
However, Sato discloses vehicle driving control apparatus for emergency evacuation to a road shoulder when a driver cannot take over operation that teaches wherein the processor is further configured to assess that the predetermined condition has not been met when the vehicle is travelling in the lane bordering the shoulder, (see at least Sato [0104]) "Whether an obstacle is on the road shoulder 50 is sensed to determine whether the vehicle can move to the road shoulder (step 123), and if it is determined to be able to so move, a road shoulder movement possible flag is set (step 124).”; (see at least Sato [0058]) "monitoring of the periphery of the vehicle is continued by external information obtained by the environmental condition estimating part 11 through the external sensor 21, and if intrusion (interruption) of another vehicle into the front predetermined area ZF, rear predetermined area ZR, or lateral predetermined area ZL is confirmed…” where the external information confirms (assesses) an intruding vehicle in the rear predetermined area (behind the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the vehicle stop support system as taught by Modified Sugano, with the automated lane change when there is no other vehicle in a predetermined area of neighboring lane as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both inventions are from the same field of endeavor for detection of driver abnormality and automated driving support.
One would be motivated to make this combination because during automated lane change operation when the driver is unable to operate the vehicle, the system as taught by Sato (see [0111]) “has advantages of preventing the sudden deceleration, sudden steering, unstable behavior of the vehicle, and sudden approach to other vehicles, caused by excessive override” of the vehicle driver, thereby increasing vehicle safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights