DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 10/15/2025. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims no longer invoke interpretation under 112(f), therefore all interpretations under 112(f) of the previous office action are withdrawn.
Amendments removing terms “closely”, “normal”, and “short” no longer use relative terms in the claim language and therefore the previous rejections of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (Machine Translation of JP 2020095635 A) henceforth referred to as Yamane and further in view of Gonzalez et al (US 20200223443 A1) henceforth referred to as Gonzalez.
Regarding Claim 1 Yamane teaches A path checking device for a subject vehicle including that travels by automated-driving according to a plurality of driving plans and includes a travel control ECU that controls traveling of the subject vehicle according to one of the driving plans (pg 2 : “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of the overall configuration of a vehicle 4 according to the present embodiment.”, pg 2 : “The vehicle control device 1 controls the traveling of the vehicle 4 according to the surrounding conditions and executes the automatic driving of the vehicle 4. In the present embodiment, as an example, the vehicle control device 1 executes level 4 automatic driving.”, pg 3 : “As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle control device 1 of this embodiment includes a detection unit 11, a travel route prediction unit 12, a determination unit 13, a specification unit 14, a risk potential map generation unit 15, and a travel planning unit. 16 and a traveling control unit 17.”, pg 20 : “The travel route to be changed is changed (S9). Then, the travel planning unit 16 sends the risk determination area 41 based on the changed travel route to the determination unit 13, and returns to the process of S3.”), the path checking device comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium 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 approaching the obstacle (pg 6 : “Returning to FIG. 2, the determination unit 13 determines whether the mobile body 5 interferes with the travel route of the vehicle 4 within the prediction target time based on the detected predicted movement area 51of the mobile body 5 and the travel route of the vehicle 4.”, pg 7 : “The distance from the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the lower part of FIG. 3 to the stop position P is the stop distance of the vehicle 4. Therefore, when the vehicle 4 stops at the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the middle stage of FIG. 3, the vehicle 4 can stop at the stop position P shown in the lower stage of FIG. 3 or a position before the stop position P. There is. Since the stopping distance of the vehicle 4 changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like, the range of the dangerous determination area 41 that is the stoptable area 42 also changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like.”);
determine whether the subject vehicle is traveling with the safety distance (pg 14 : “Then, the travel planning unit 16 determines whether the mobile unit 5 interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 based on the first position (S504).”, pg 14 : “position (S504). For example, in the example shown in the middle diagram of FIG. 5, the range 51c in which the moving body 5 is predicted to exist 3 seconds after the time when the predicted moving area 51 is generated overlaps with the danger determination area 41. , And the stoppable area 42 therein does not overlap. In this case, the distance between the first position and the current position of the vehicle 4 is shorter than the stopping distance of the vehicle 4. In such a case, the travel planning unit 16 determines that the mobile unit 5 interferes with the range other than the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 at the interference time(S504 “No”)”); and
execute emergency control for the subject vehicle that is different from control according to the one of the driving plans when a distance between the subject vehicle and the obstacle is less than the safety distance (pg 14 : “In addition, when the travel planning unit 16 determines that the vehicle 4has not passed the first position at the interference time (S505 “No”), the behavior of the vehicle 4 is changed to “avoid” and “decelerate”. The combination is determined (S507). That is, the travel planning unit 16 determines to decelerate the vehicle 4 and avoid the moving body 5.”);
when a moving obstacle is located ahead of the subject vehicle, set a caution zone for the subject vehicle that is located away from the subject vehicle over the safety distance and is between the moving obstacle and the subject vehicle (pg 13-14 : “The identifying unit 14 sends the predicted interference time, the first position, and the second position to the travel planning unit 16. Then, the travel planning unit 16 determines whether the mobile unit 5 interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 based on the first position (S504).”); and
select, from among the driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the moving obstacle does not come in the caution zone for the subject vehicle, wherein (pg 15 : “In addition, when the travel planning unit 16 determines that the mobile body 5 interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 (S504 “Yes”), the travel planning unit 16 calculates the speed at which the mobile body 5 approaches the danger determination area 41.(S508).”, pg 17 : “The travel planning unit 16 determines the behavior of the vehicle 4 based on the speed at which the moving body 5 approaches the danger determination area 41. In the present embodiment, the travel planning unit16 compares the speed at which the mobile body 5 approaches the danger determination area 41 with the first threshold value, the second threshold value, and the third threshold value, and the vehicle according to the comparison result. The behavior of 4 is determined to either stop, decelerate, avoid the moving body 5, a combination of decelerating and avoiding the moving body 5, or continue traveling without changing the traveling route.”). However, Yamane does not explicitly teach the safety distance is calculated based on a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the subject vehicle and a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the moving obstacle, and
wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle, and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are opposite to each other, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle traveled with the maximum accelerations from current speeds for the response times and then decelerated with the maximum decelerations, and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are the same, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the moving obstacle decelerated with the maximum deceleration and the subject vehicle traveled with the maximum acceleration from a current speed for the response time and then decelerated with the maximum deceleration.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (), Gonzalez teaches the safety distance is calculated based on a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the subject vehicle and a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the moving obstacle (para [0087] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using a covered distance (for example a distance covered by the vehicle 100 in a response time), a maximal acceleration during a response time 906 of the vehicle 100, a minimal intensity braking distance 908, and/or a maximal braking distance 910 (see FIG. 9B).”, para [0041] : “In order to control an autonomous vehicle, it may be advantageous to determine safety-related parameters, such as a safety distance to another vehicle, in real-time or in a predictive manner.”, para [0103] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using the distance covered by the vehicle 100 in the response time given by the first member of equation (2), the distance covered by the vehicle 100 due to the maximal acceleration during the response time given by the second member of equation (2), the minimal intensity braking distance of the vehicle 100 given by the third member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 in a response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fourth member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 due to the maximal acceleration of the other vehicle 902 during the response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fifth member of equation (2), and a minimal intensity braking distance of the other vehicle 902 given by the sixth member of equation (2). The response time of the other vehicle 902 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the other vehicle 902 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the other vehicle 902.”), and
wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle (para [0087] : “First, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven along the same longitudinal direction is considered”, para [0099] : “Second, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven in opposite longitudinal directions is considered”, it would be required that the system determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in order to function as described in determining safety distance based on the directions of the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle), and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are opposite to each other, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle traveled with the maximum accelerations from current speeds for the response times and then decelerated with the maximum decelerations (para [0099] : “Second, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven in opposite longitudinal directions is considered: The velocity of the vehicle 100 may be positive (v.sub.r>0) and the velocity of the other vehicle 902 may be negative (v.sub.f<0). The safety distance 412 may be determined using equation (2):”, para [0103] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using the distance covered by the vehicle 100 in the response time given by the first member of equation (2), the distance covered by the vehicle 100 due to the maximal acceleration during the response time given by the second member of equation (2), the minimal intensity braking distance of the vehicle 100 given by the third member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 in a response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fourth member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 due to the maximal acceleration of the other vehicle 902 during the response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fifth member of equation (2), and a minimal intensity braking distance of the other vehicle 902 given by the sixth member of equation (2). The response time of the other vehicle 902 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the other vehicle 902 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the other vehicle 902.”), and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are the same, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the moving obstacle decelerated with the maximum deceleration and the subject vehicle traveled with the maximum acceleration from a current speed for the response time and then decelerated with the maximum deceleration (para [0087] : “First, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven along the same longitudinal direction is considered: The safety distance 412 may be determined using a covered distance (for example a distance covered by the vehicle 100 in a response time), a maximal acceleration during a response time 906 of the vehicle 100, a minimal intensity braking distance 908, and/or a maximal braking distance 910 (see FIG. 9B). The response time may be a response time of the vehicle 100. The response time of the vehicle 100 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the vehicle 100 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the vehicle 100. The minimal intensity braking distance 908 may represent a distance covered by the vehicle 100 during braking with a braking intensity for a safe and comfortable driving experience. The maximal intensity braking distance 910 may represent a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 during braking with a maximal braking intensity, for example during an emergency braking. The maximal intensity braking distance 910 may represent a distance required to fully stop the other vehicle 902 during braking with a maximal braking intensity.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Yamane with the teachings of Gonzalez to increase safety and efficiency accounting for variables in a two body system with potential collisions.
Regarding Claim 2 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 1, further Yamane teaches wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to control the travel control ECU to execute at least one of deceleration control and steering control to increase the distance to the moving obstacle when the moving obstacle enters the caution zone (pg 14 : “In addition, when the travel planning unit 16 determines that the vehicle 4has not passed the first position at the interference time (S505 “No”), the behavior of the vehicle 4 is changed to “avoid” and “decelerate”. The combination is determined (S507). That is, the travel planning unit 16 determines to decelerate the vehicle 4 and avoid the moving body 5.”).
Regarding Claim 3 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 1, further Yamane teaches wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
set, in addition to the caution zone for the subject vehicle, a moving-obstacle caution zone for the moving obstacle around the moving obstacle (pg 16 : “FIG. 8: is a figure which shows an example of the estimated movement area 51 of the mobile body 5 which approaches the danger determination area 41 which concerns on this embodiment. In the upper diagram of FIG.8, from the center of the circle indicating the range 51a in which the mobile body 5 is predicted to exist 1 second after the predicted movement area 51 of the mobile body 5 is generated, from the outer frame of the danger determination area 41 The distance to the position closest to the center of the circle is defined as the distance d1.”), and
select, from among the driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone do not overlap with each other (Fig. 8, Fig. 8 shows selection of a path where the predicted movement area 51 and the danger determination area 41 do not overlap).
Regarding Claim 4 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 3, further Yamane teaches wherein
when the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone overlap with each other during traveling of the subject vehicle, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to select a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the distance to the moving obstacle is maintained beyond the safety distance and the overlap between the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone is eliminated (pg 23-24 : “In addition, the vehicle control device 1 of the present embodiment determines that the behavior of the vehicle 4 is either stop, deceleration, avoidance of the moving body 5, or combination of deceleration and avoidance of the moving body 5. Then, based on the traveling route of the vehicle 4 based on the determined behavior, it is determined again whether the moving body 5 interferes with the traveling route of the vehicle 4. According to the vehicle control device 1 of the present embodiment, it is possible to prevent the moving body 5 from interfering with the traveling route of the vehicle 4 with higher accuracy by performing the determination again based on the changed traveling route.”).
Regarding Claim 8 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 1, futher Yamane teaches
wherein the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
set a caution distance that is greater than the safety distance as a distance to be kept between the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle (pg 6 : “Returning to FIG. 2, the determination unit 13 determines whether the mobile body 5 interferes with the travel route of the vehicle 4 within the prediction target time based on the detected predicted movement area 51of the mobile body 5 and the travel route of the vehicle 4.”, pg 7 : “The distance from the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the lower part of FIG. 3 to the stop position P is the stop distance of the vehicle 4. Therefore, when the vehicle 4 stops at the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the middle stage of FIG. 3, the vehicle 4 can stop at the stop position P shown in the lower stage of FIG. 3 or a position before the stop position P. There is. Since the stopping distance of the vehicle 4 changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like, the range of the dangerous determination area 41 that is the stoptable area 42 also changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like.”), and
determine whether the subject vehicle is traveling with the caution distance (pg 13 : “In the example illustrated in the middle diagram of FIG. 5, the range 51c in which the moving body 5 is predicted to exist 3 seconds after the time when the predicted moving area 51 is generated overlaps with the danger determination area 41, so the specifying unit 14 Calculates the interference time by adding 3 seconds to the time when the predicted movement area 51 was generated.”, pg 13-14 : “The identifying unit 14 sends the predicted interference time, the first position, and the second position to the travel planning unit 16. Then, the travel planning unit 16 determines whether the mobile unit 5interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41based on the first position (S504).”, pg 14 : “For example, in the example shown in the middle diagram of FIG. 5, the range 51c in which the moving body 5 is predicted to exist 3 seconds after the time when the predicted moving area 51 is generated overlaps with the danger determination area 41. , And the stoppable area 42 therein does not overlap. In this case, the distance between the first position and the current position of the vehicle 4 is shorter than the stopping distance of the vehicle 4. In such a case, the travel planning unit 16 determines that the mobile unit 5 interferes with the range other than the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 at the interference time(S504 “No”).”); and
control the travel control ECU to increase the distance to the moving obstacle to exceed the caution distance when the distance to the moving obstacle is less than the caution distance (pg 17 : “The travel planning unit 16 determines the behavior of the vehicle 4 based on the speed at which the moving body 5 approaches the danger determination area 41. In the present embodiment, the travel planning unit16 compares the speed at which the mobile body 5 approaches the danger determination area 41 with the first threshold value, the second threshold value, and the third threshold value, and the vehicle according to the comparison result. The behavior of 4 is determined to either stop, decelerate, avoid the moving body 5, a combination of decelerating and avoiding the moving body 5, or continue traveling without changing the traveling route.”), and
when the moving obstacle exists, set the caution zone that is an area located away from the subject vehicle over the caution distance and is between the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle (pg 7 : “Further, in the danger determination area 41, a range farther from the current position of the vehicle 4 than the stop position P is referred to as a stoppable area 42 (see FIG. 3). The stoppable area 42 is a part of the risk determination area 41. The stop position P is a position at which the vehicle 4 can be stopped when the vehicle 4 makes a stop operation at the position of the vehicle 4 when the first determination process is executed.”).
Regarding Claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 5-7, 9, 10-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane and Gonzalez and further in view of Okamura et al (Machine Translation of JP 2014104939 A) henceforth referred to as Okamura.
Regarding Claim 5 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 3, however Yamane does not explicitly teach wherein
when the subject vehicle is traveling to park in a parking area, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
set, in addition to the caution zone for the subject vehicle, a parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the subject vehicle to the parking area, and
select, from among the generated driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone do not overlap with each other.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (autonomous parking systems) Okamura teaches wherein
when the subject vehicle is traveling to park in a parking area, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to:
set, in addition to the caution zone for the subject vehicle, a parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the subject vehicle to the parking area (pg 7 : “In addition, the parking support control unit sends a command to at least one of the steering ECU 2, the engine ECU 3, and the braking ECU 4 with or without the display, and moves the vehicle from the current position to the parking area.”, pg 10 : “In this case, by calculating the reflection position of the received second laser light on the road surface, itis possible to grasp the route to the parking area of the specific other vehicle with the intention of parking irradiated with the second laser light. Therefore, in this case, since the calculation accuracy when determining the priority of performing the guidance support between the host vehicle and the specific other vehicle described later is improved, the determination accuracy of whether or not the parking support control described later is interrupted is determined. Becomes higher. Therefore, in this case, even if the specific other vehicle is performing parking support control near the own vehicle, if the mutual guidance routes do not overlap with each other, the parking support control continues to be performed without interruption.”), and
select, from among the generated driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone do not overlap with each other (pg 10 : “Therefore, it is possible to suppress the driver's annoyance caused by the interruption. Furthermore, in this case, since the second laser beam is irradiated onto the actual road guidance route, the guidance route of the specific other vehicle can be easily grasped, and the calculation of the execution priority and the parking assistance control can be performed.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez with the teachings of Okamura to increase safety during parking operations.
Regarding Claim 6 the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez teaches The path checking device according to claim 1, however Yamane does not explicitly teach wherein
when the moving obstacle is a surrounding vehicle that is traveling around the subject vehicle and the surrounding vehicle is expected to park in a parking area, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to
set, in addition to the caution zone for the subject vehicle, a parking-lot caution zone for the surrounding vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the surrounding vehicle to the parking area, and
select, from among the driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the parking-lot caution zone for the surrounding vehicle do not overlap with each other.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (autonomous parking systems) Okamura teaches when the moving obstacle is a surrounding vehicle that is traveling around the subject vehicle and the surrounding vehicle is expected to park in a parking area, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to
set, in addition to the caution zone for the subject vehicle, a parking-lot caution zone for the surrounding vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the surrounding vehicle to the parking area (pg 7 : “In addition, the parking support control unit sends a command to at least one of the steering ECU 2, the engine ECU 3, and the braking ECU 4 with or without the display, and moves the vehicle from the current position to the parking area.”, pg 10 : “In this case, by calculating the reflection position of the received second laser light on the road surface, itis possible to grasp the route to the parking area of the specific other vehicle with the intention of parking irradiated with the second laser light. Therefore, in this case, since the calculation accuracy when determining the priority of performing the guidance support between the host vehicle and the specific other vehicle described later is improved, the determination accuracy of whether or not the parking support control described later is interrupted is determined. Becomes higher. Therefore, in this case, even if the specific other vehicle is performing parking support control near the own vehicle, if the mutual guidance routes do not overlap with each other, the parking support control continues to be performed without interruption.”), and
select, from among the driving plans, a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel such that the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the parking-lot caution zone for the surrounding vehicle do not overlap with each other (pg 10 : “Therefore, it is possible to suppress the driver's annoyance caused by the interruption. Furthermore, in this case, since the second laser beam is irradiated onto the actual road guidance route, the guidance route of the specific other vehicle can be easily grasped, and the calculation of the execution priority and the parking assistance control can be performed.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez with the teachings of Okamura to increase safety during parking operations.
Regarding Claim 7 the combination of Yamane, Gonzalez, and Okamura teaches The path checking device according to claim 6, further Okamura teaches wherein
when there is no driving plan, among the driving plans, along which the subject vehicle would travel such that the caution zone for the subject vehicle and the parking-lot caution zone for the surrounding vehicle do not overlap with each other, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to control the travel control ECU to stop the subject vehicle (pg 11 : “Specifically, the priority order determination unit determines that when the irradiation area of the second laser beam of the received specific other vehicle (more specifically, the irradiation area to the road surface) overlaps with the guidance path of the own vehicle, The priority of implementation of guidance support during the period is determined.”, pg 15 : “On the other hand, when giving priority to the guidance assistance of the specific other vehicle, the parking assistance control unit interrupts the parking assistance control of the own vehicle (step ST10).”).
Regarding Claim 9 Yamane teaches A path checking device for a subject vehicle that travels by automated-driving according to a plurality of driving plans and includes a travel control ECU that controls traveling of the subject vehicle according to one of the driving plans (pg 2 : “FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an example of the overall configuration of a vehicle 4 according to the present embodiment.”, pg 2 : “The vehicle control device 1 controls the traveling of the vehicle 4 according to the surrounding conditions and executes the automatic driving of the vehicle 4. In the present embodiment, as an example, the vehicle control device 1 executes level 4 automatic driving.”, pg 3 : “As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle control device 1 of this embodiment includes a detection unit 11, a travel route prediction unit 12, a determination unit 13, a specification unit 14, a risk potential map generation unit 15, and a travel planning unit. 16 and a traveling control unit 17.”, pg 20 : “The travel route to be changed is changed (S9). Then, the travel planning unit 16 sends the risk determination area 41 based on the changed travel route to the determination unit 13, and returns to the process of S3.”), the path checking device comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and
a set of computer-executable instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 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 approaching the obstacle (pg 6 : “Returning to FIG. 2, the determination unit 13 determines whether the mobile body 5 interferes with the travel route of the vehicle 4 within the prediction target time based on the detected predicted movement area 51of the mobile body 5 and the travel route of the vehicle 4.”, pg 7 : “The distance from the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the lower part of FIG. 3 to the stop position P is the stop distance of the vehicle 4. Therefore, when the vehicle 4 stops at the position of the vehicle 4 shown in the middle stage of FIG. 3, the vehicle 4 can stop at the stop position P shown in the lower stage of FIG. 3 or a position before the stop position P. There is. Since the stopping distance of the vehicle 4 changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like, the range of the dangerous determination area 41 that is the stoptable area 42 also changes depending on the vehicle speed of the vehicle 4 or the like.”);
determine whether the subject vehicle is traveling with the safety distance (pg 14 : “Then, the travel planning unit 16 determines whether the mobile unit 5 interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 based on the first position (S504).”, pg 14 : “position (S504). For example, in the example shown in the middle diagram of FIG. 5, the range 51c in which the moving body 5 is predicted to exist 3 seconds after the time when the predicted moving area 51 is generated overlaps with the danger determination area 41. , And the stoppable area 42 therein does not overlap. In this case, the distance between the first position and the current position of the vehicle 4 is shorter than the stopping distance of the vehicle 4. In such a case, the travel planning unit 16 determines that the mobile unit 5 interferes with the range other than the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 at the interference time(S504 “No”)”); and
execute emergency control for the subject vehicle that is different from control according to the one of the driving plans when a distance between the subject vehicle and the obstacle is less than the safety distance (pg 14 : “In addition, when the travel planning unit 16 determines that the vehicle 4has not passed the first position at the interference time (S505 “No”), the behavior of the vehicle 4 is changed to “avoid” and “decelerate”. The combination is determined (S507). That is, the travel planning unit 16 determines to decelerate the vehicle 4 and avoid the moving body 5.”);
set a moving-obstacle caution zone for a moving obstacle around the moving obstacle when the moving obstacle is located ahead of the subject vehicle (pg 13-14 : “The identifying unit 14 sends the predicted interference time, the first position, and the second position to the travel planning unit 16. Then, the travel planning unit 16 determines whether the mobile unit 5 interferes with the stoppable area 42 in the danger determination area 41 based on the first position (S504).”); and
select a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel. However, Yamane does not explicitly teach set a parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the subject vehicle to a parking area when the subject vehicle is traveling to park in the parking area; and
the subject vehicle will travel to park in the parking area when the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone for the moving obstacle do not overlap with each other,
the safety distance is calculated based on a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the subject vehicle and a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the moving obstacle, and
wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle, and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are opposite to each other, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle traveled with the maximum accelerations from current speeds for the response times and then decelerated with the maximum decelerations, and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are the same, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the moving obstacle decelerated with the maximum deceleration and the subject vehicle traveled with the maximum acceleration from a current speed for the response time and then decelerated with the maximum deceleration.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (), Gonzalez teaches the safety distance is calculated based on a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the subject vehicle and a speed, a maximum acceleration, a maximum deceleration, and a response time of the moving obstacle (para [0087] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using a covered distance (for example a distance covered by the vehicle 100 in a response time), a maximal acceleration during a response time 906 of the vehicle 100, a minimal intensity braking distance 908, and/or a maximal braking distance 910 (see FIG. 9B).”, para [0041] : “In order to control an autonomous vehicle, it may be advantageous to determine safety-related parameters, such as a safety distance to another vehicle, in real-time or in a predictive manner.”, para [0103] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using the distance covered by the vehicle 100 in the response time given by the first member of equation (2), the distance covered by the vehicle 100 due to the maximal acceleration during the response time given by the second member of equation (2), the minimal intensity braking distance of the vehicle 100 given by the third member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 in a response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fourth member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 due to the maximal acceleration of the other vehicle 902 during the response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fifth member of equation (2), and a minimal intensity braking distance of the other vehicle 902 given by the sixth member of equation (2). The response time of the other vehicle 902 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the other vehicle 902 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the other vehicle 902.”), and
wherein
the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle (para [0087] : “First, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven along the same longitudinal direction is considered”, para [0099] : “Second, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven in opposite longitudinal directions is considered”, it would be required that the system determine a moving direction of the subject vehicle and a moving direction of the moving obstacle in order to function as described in determining safety distance based on the directions of the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle), and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are opposite to each other, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle traveled with the maximum accelerations from current speeds for the response times and then decelerated with the maximum decelerations (para [0099] : “Second, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven in opposite longitudinal directions is considered: The velocity of the vehicle 100 may be positive (v.sub.r>0) and the velocity of the other vehicle 902 may be negative (v.sub.f<0). The safety distance 412 may be determined using equation (2):”, para [0103] : “The safety distance 412 may be determined using the distance covered by the vehicle 100 in the response time given by the first member of equation (2), the distance covered by the vehicle 100 due to the maximal acceleration during the response time given by the second member of equation (2), the minimal intensity braking distance of the vehicle 100 given by the third member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 in a response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fourth member of equation (2), a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 due to the maximal acceleration of the other vehicle 902 during the response time of the other vehicle 902 given by the fifth member of equation (2), and a minimal intensity braking distance of the other vehicle 902 given by the sixth member of equation (2). The response time of the other vehicle 902 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the other vehicle 902 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the other vehicle 902.”), and
for a state in which the moving direction of the subject vehicle and the moving direction of the moving obstacle in front of the subject vehicle are the same, the safety distance is calculated as a distance within which the subject vehicle and the moving obstacle can stop without colliding with each other after the moving obstacle decelerated with the maximum deceleration and the subject vehicle traveled with the maximum acceleration from a current speed for the response time and then decelerated with the maximum deceleration (para [0087] : “First, the case where the vehicle 100 and the other vehicle 902 are driven along the same longitudinal direction is considered: The safety distance 412 may be determined using a covered distance (for example a distance covered by the vehicle 100 in a response time), a maximal acceleration during a response time 906 of the vehicle 100, a minimal intensity braking distance 908, and/or a maximal braking distance 910 (see FIG. 9B). The response time may be a response time of the vehicle 100. The response time of the vehicle 100 may be or may include a response time of a driver of the vehicle 100 and/or a response time of a driving system (for example including a safety system and a mobility system) controlling the vehicle 100. The minimal intensity braking distance 908 may represent a distance covered by the vehicle 100 during braking with a braking intensity for a safe and comfortable driving experience. The maximal intensity braking distance 910 may represent a distance covered by the other vehicle 902 during braking with a maximal braking intensity, for example during an emergency braking. The maximal intensity braking distance 910 may represent a distance required to fully stop the other vehicle 902 during braking with a maximal braking intensity.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Yamane with the teachings of Gonzalez to increase safety and efficiency accounting for variables in a two body system with potential collisions.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach
set a parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the subject vehicle to a parking area when the subject vehicle is traveling to park in the parking area; and
the subject vehicle will travel to park in the parking area when the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone for the moving obstacle do not overlap with each other.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (autonomous parking systems) Okamura teaches set a parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle that includes a travel path from a current position of the subject vehicle to a parking area when the subject vehicle is traveling to park in the parking area (pg 7 : “In addition, the parking support control unit sends a command to at least one of the steering ECU 2, the engine ECU 3, and the braking ECU 4 with or without the display, and moves the vehicle from the current position to the parking area.”, pg 10 : “In this case, by calculating the reflection position of the received second laser light on the road surface, itis possible to grasp the route to the parking area of the specific other vehicle with the intention of parking irradiated with the second laser light. Therefore, in this case, since the calculation accuracy when determining the priority of performing the guidance support between the host vehicle and the specific other vehicle described later is improved, the determination accuracy of whether or not the parking support control described later is interrupted is determined. Becomes higher. Therefore, in this case, even if the specific other vehicle is performing parking support control near the own vehicle, if the mutual guidance routes do not overlap with each other, the parking support control continues to be performed without interruption.”); and
the subject vehicle will travel to park in the parking area when the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone for the moving obstacle do not overlap with each other (pg 10 : “Therefore, it is possible to suppress the driver's annoyance caused by the interruption. Furthermore, in this case, since the second laser beam is irradiated onto the actual road guidance route, the guidance route of the specific other vehicle can be easily grasped, and the calculation of the execution priority and the parking assistance control can be performed.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the combination of Yamane and Gonzalez with the teachings of Okamura to increase safety during parking operations.
Regarding Claim 10 the combination of Yamane, Gonzalez, and Okamura teaches The path checking device according to claim 9, further Okamura teaches wherein
when the parking-lot caution zone for the subject vehicle and the moving-obstacle caution zone for the moving obstacle overlap with each other, the set of computer-executable instructions further cause the processor to (pg 11 : “Specifically, the priority order determination unit determines that when the irradiation area of the second laser beam of the received specific other vehicle (more specifically, the irradiation area to the road surface) overlaps with the guidance path of the own vehicle, The priority of implementation of guidance support during the period is determined. At that time, the priority determination unit estimates the reflection position of the second laser beam on the road surface from the incident angle of the second laser beam of the received specific other vehicle, and estimates the guidance route of the other vehicle from the reflection position. .”):
execute a confirmation process to confirm whether the moving obstacle will travel without entering the parking-lot caution zone set by the subject vehicle (pg 11 : “Specifically, the priority order determination unit determines that when the irradiation area of the second laser beam of the received specific other vehicle (more specifically, the irradiation area to the road surface) overlaps with the guidance path of the own vehicle, The priority of implementation of guidance support during the period is determined. At that time, the priority determination unit estimates the reflection position of the second laser beam on the road surface from the incident angle of the second laser beam of the received specific other vehicle, and estimates the guidance route of the other vehicle from the reflection position .”); and then
select a driving plan along which the subject vehicle will travel to park in the parking area (pg 11-12 : “For example, when the vehicle receives the second laser light of the specific other vehicle before the vehicle irradiates the second laser beam, the priority determination unit gives priority to the guidance support of the specific other vehicle over the vehicle. Judgment is made. In addition, when the vehicle receives the second laser light of the specific other vehicle after the host vehicle irradiates the second laser beam, the priority determination unit gives priority to the guidance support of the own vehicle over the specific other vehicle. Judgment is made. In addition, when the irradiation of the second laser light of the own vehicle and the reception of
the second laser light of the specific other vehicle are substantially simultaneous, the priority determination unit is configured to provide guidance assistance that is slightly earlier of the irradiation and the light reception. Judgment to prioritize the implementation of. For this purpose, for example, information on the irradiation time of the second laser light may be placed on the second laser light.”).
Regarding Claim 11 the combination of Yamane, Gonzalez, and Okamura teaches The path checking device according to claim 10, further Yamane teaches wherein
the confirmation process includes a process to determine, based on a behavior by the moving obstacle when the subject vehicle stops or travels for a distance, whether the moving obstacle is waiting until the subject vehicle terminates parking process (pg 9-10 : “The travel planning unit 16 also determines the behavior of the vehicle 4 based on the first position and the second position predicted by the specifying unit 14. For example, the travel planning unit 16 determines the behavior of the vehicle 4 based on whether or not the second position is located closer to the traveling direction side of the vehicle 4 than the first position at the interference time. In addition, the travel planning unit 16 determines the behavior of the vehicle 4 based on whether or not the distance between the first position and the current position of the vehicle 4is the stop distance of the vehicle 4 or more.”).
Regarding Claim 14, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim 9 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20200148213 A1 : Gawande et al teaches a vehicle alert and control system which takes into account a detected road friction at a following vehicle and a predicted road friction by the following vehicle. The detected road friction between the following vehicle tires and the road surface are assessed to compute a critical safety distance between the following vehicle and the preceding vehicle and a critical safety speed of the following vehicle.
US 20160214604 A1 : Kida et al teaches a system which includes obstacle detecting unit to detect an obstacle outside a host vehicle and acquire obstacle information including distance to the obstacle, a collision avoidance control unit configured to execute driving force suppression control for intervening to suppress driving force on the basis of obstacle information, and a driving force return control unit configured to execute driving force return control for returning the driving forced suppressed by the driving force suppression control.
US 20190193629 A1 : Zevenbergen et al teaches a system including a vehicle, a light projector, and a control system. The control system determines a planned operating region for the vehicle within an environment and determines that the planned operating region is within a threshold distance of an object within the environment. In response to the determination further determines a caution region to illuminate with the light projector near the object. The control system causes the light project to project an indication of the caution region near the object where the indication remains fixed in relation to the object as the vehicle moves toward the planned operating region.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668