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 final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 01/09/2026.
Claims 22-27 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has cancelled claims 1-21 and added new claims 22-27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7-15, 17-18, and 20-21 rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because (a) all claims in the previous rejection of record have been cancelled and (b) the new ground of rejection is against claims 22-27 and have not been rejected using any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 22 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawande et al. (US 20200148213 A1) in view of Wu (CN 110588652 A).
Regarding claim 22, Gawande discloses a vehicle system for a subject vehicle that travels according to a driving plan that is set for the subject vehicle to travel by automated-driving (see at least ¶ [0003], [0007-0009], and [0052] disclosing a vehicle with autonomous driving system that generates path plans based on distances to other vehicles and objects during unfavorable weather conditions), the vehicle system comprising:
a processor (see at least ¶ [0009] and [0059]);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least ¶ [0058]);
and a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least ¶ [0058-0059]) that cause the processor to:
set a minimum safety distance for the subject vehicle to an obstacle in order for the subject vehicle to avoid closely approaching the obstacle (see at least ¶ [0017] and [0027] disclosing an adaptive cruise control (ACC) generating a warning safety distance between a vehicle and a preceding vehicle and/or a stationary object);
determine whether the subject vehicle is traveling at the safety distance to the obstacle (see at least ¶ [0019-0027] disclosing the vehicle being controlled to travel within the warning safety distance);
and execute emergency control for the subject vehicle that is different from normal control according to the driving plan when a distance between the subject vehicle and the obstacle is less than the safety distance (see at least ¶ [0019-0028] and [0031] and Figs. 3 and 5 disclosing issuing a warning to the driver when the current distance is below the calculated warning safety distance).
Gawande does not explicitly disclose determining whether the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance during the emergency control;
and upon determining that the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance, terminating the emergency control and execute the driving plan for the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance.
However, Wu suggests determining whether the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance during the emergency control (see at least pages 1-2 of the machine translation, starting with “Preferably, in order to improve the performance…”, disclosing a model prediction controller that tracks a safe distance where, if the measured distance is below the safe distance, an emergency brake controller activates);
and upon determining that the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance, terminating the emergency control and execute the driving plan for the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance (see at least pages 1-2 of the machine translation, starting with “Preferably, in order to improve the performance…”, disclosing, if the measured distance is above the safe distance, an emergency brake controller switches back to the model prediction controller).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the distance-based emergency response activation and deactivation of Wu in the distance monitoring system of Gawande with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward dynamically controlling the distance between a vehicle and other surrounding vehicles or objects to maintain a safe distance from vehicles and objects. This would help provide the driver with more reaction time and space to avoid potential collisions.
Regarding claim 26, Gawande suggests braking the subject vehicle during the emergency control (see at least ¶ [0047] discloses controlling the vehicle to maintain a safe driving speed by controlling the brakes and decelerating the vehicle).
Regarding claim 27, Gawande suggests performing an emergency stop of the subject vehicle during the emergency control (see at least ¶ [0008], [00019], and [0047] discloses controlling the vehicle to calculate and maintain a safe driving speed using the safety distance – which is a required stopping distance – by controlling the brakes and decelerating the vehicle).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawande et al. in view of Wu, as applied to claim 22 above, and in view of Kida et al. (US 20160214604 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Gawande discloses setting a caution distance for the subject vehicle to a surrounding vehicle that is travelling around the subject vehicle when the obstacle is the surrounding vehicle (see at least ¶ [0017] and [0027] disclosing an adaptive cruise control (ACC) generating a critical safety distance between a vehicle and a preceding vehicle and/or a stationary object), the caution distance being greater than the safety distance (see at least ¶ [0028] and Fig. 3 disclosing the critical safety distance is greater than the warning safety distance).
The combination of Gawande and Wu does not explicitly disclose, when the caution distance has been already set for the surrounding vehicle, determining whether the subject vehicle would be able to travel with the safety distance if the driving plan newly generated by the path generation unit is executed during execution of the emergency control;
and terminating the emergency control and execute the newly generated driving plan when the subject vehicle is determined to be able to travel with the safety distance.
However, Kida suggests , when the caution distance has been already set for the surrounding vehicle, determining whether the subject vehicle would be able to travel with the safety distance if the driving plan newly generated by the path generation unit is executed during execution of the emergency control (see at least ¶ [0053-0054], [0063], and [0065-0070] disclosing collision avoidance driving assistance that observes the vehicle has performed actions to avoid collision based on travel distance from the host vehicle and detected obstacle);
and terminating the emergency control and execute the newly generated driving plan when the subject vehicle is determined to be able to travel with the safety distance (see at least ¶ [0053-0054], [0063], and [0065-0070] disclosing collision avoidance driving assistance that observes the vehicle has performed actions to avoid collision and subsequently ends the collision avoidance driving assistance).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate ending driving assistance when collision is avoided as demonstrated by Kida into the combination of Gawande and Wu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward vehicle systems for observing and responding to potential obstacles and vehicles to avoid collisions. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that once an emergency situation has subsided that emergency control measures would subside, as demonstrated by Kida.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawande et al. in view of Wu, as applied to claim 22 above, and in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20190375402 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Gawande and Wu does not explicitly disclose generating a plurality of driving plans during the emergency control;
and selecting and executing one of the plurality of driving plans that enables the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance upon determining that the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance.
However, Shimizu suggests generating a plurality of driving plans during the emergency control (see at least ¶ [0044-0046] and [0051-0057] disclosing systems for automatic driving of a vehicle including an action plan generating part that generates and selects from a plurality of target path candidates to arrive at a safe place, including interacting with vehicle control and obstruction degree determining parts that monitor a relative distance and speed between the vehicle and an obstruction to determine a degree of obstruction it poses);
and selecting and executing one of the plurality of driving plans that enables the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance upon determining that the distance to the obstacle is greater than the safety distance (see at least ¶ [0044-0046] and [0051-0057] disclosing systems for automatic driving of a vehicle including an action plan generating part that generates and selects from a plurality of target path candidates to arrive at a safe place, including interacting with vehicle control and obstruction degree determining parts that monitor a relative distance and speed between the vehicle and an obstruction to determine a degree of obstruction it poses).
While Shimizu is not explicitly directed toward generating target path candidates while operating in emergency control, the ability to produce multiple path candidates are applicable to the emergency control situations described in the combination of Gawande and Wu because they are directed toward the improved safety of the vehicle in hazardous situations. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate generating the plurality of target path candidates of Shimizu into the combination of Gawande and Wu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring the distance of the vehicle to surrounding obstacles and obstructions and avoiding and/or mitigating potential collisions with them. This would allow the emergency control system to optimize the driving assistance provided by the ACC by maintaining the caution and safety distances between vehicles.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Gawande and Wu does not explicitly disclose continuing to execute the emergency control when all the plurality of driving plans generated during the emergency control unable the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance.
However, Shimizu suggests continuing to execute the emergency control when all the plurality of driving plans generated during the emergency control unable the subject vehicle to travel with the safety distance (see at least ¶ [0044-0046] and [0051-0057] disclosing systems for automatic driving of a vehicle including an action plan generating part that generates and selects from a plurality of target path candidates to arrive at a safe place, including interacting with vehicle control and obstruction degree determining parts that monitor a relative distance and speed between the vehicle and an obstruction to determine a degree of obstruction it poses).
While Shimizu is not explicitly directed toward generating target path candidates while operating in emergency control, the ability to produce multiple path candidates are applicable to the emergency control situations described in the combination of Gawande and Wu because they are directed toward the improved safety of the vehicle in hazardous situations. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate generating the plurality of target path candidates of Shimizu into the combination of Gawande and Wu with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward monitoring the distance of the vehicle to surrounding obstacles and obstructions and avoiding and/or mitigating potential collisions with them. This would allow the emergency control system to optimize the driving assistance provided by the ACC by maintaining the caution and safety distances between vehicles.
Conclusion
Roy et al. (US 20210048529 A1) is incorporated by reference into Gawande (particularly ¶ [0048-0052]) disclosing monitoring the slipperiness of detected roadway and storing detected information into an MxN matrix that is used to calculate a vehicle’s wheels’ paths through the slippery road section – such teachings are used to augment Gawande’s safety distance calculations and may modify it according to the slipperiness matrix.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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 Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669