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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement and for being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims to remove the “without reference to” claim language that gave cause to the rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on pgs. 8-9 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims as amended are directed to patentable subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The limitations “determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location” and “based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion” encompass mentally determining a set of complexity measures for different locations and mentally selecting a location that satisfies a criterion. The limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is recited at a high level of generality and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying or data output) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, there is no practical improvement in the functioning of the vehicle.
Applicant’s arguments on pgs. 9-12 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oba.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 13 recite “…prior to to…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 recite “…through output system…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system for generating takeover requests (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implement a takeover request through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying a potential disengagement event based on sensor data. The limitation “determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location” encompasses mentally determining complexity measures for different locations. The limitations “determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event” and “determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion” in the context of this claim encompass using the map to mentally select a location on a map where a takeover request should be issued based on a criterion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations of the “processor” and “memory” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a technological environment. The limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is recited at such a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “processor” and “memory” are recited a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.05(d)((II) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions for generating takeover requests (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying a potential disengagement event using sensor data. The limitation “determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location” encompasses mentally determining complexity measures for different locations. The limitations “determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event” and “determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion” in the context of this claim encompass mentally selecting a location where a takeover request should be issued based on a criterion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations of the “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a technological environment. The limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is recited at such a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. The limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation “implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.04(d)((II) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed to a method for generating takeover requests (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A method, comprising: identifying a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determining a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determining a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “identifying a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying a potential disengagement event based on sensor data. The limitation “determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location” encompasses mentally determining complexity measures for different locations. The limitations “determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event” and “determining a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion” in the context of this claim encompass mentally selecting a location where a takeover request should be issued based on a criterion.
Step 2A Prong 2: Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method, comprising: identifying a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data;
determining a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event;
determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
determining a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitation “implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is recited at such a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation “implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.04(d)((II) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
NOTE: In the previous action (07/22/2025 Non-Final Rejection), the 101 rejection for claim 13 included a limitation by error from a previous version of the claims that was not in the most recently filed claim set at the time (05/29/2025 Claims). The current 101 rejection has been updated to remove the error and reflect the correct limitations in the newest version of the claims (10/22/2025 Claims).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Dependent claim 2 is further directed to the abstract idea of determining the set of complexity measures. Dependent claims 5-7, 11-12, 14, and 17-20 further describe the optimization criterion. Dependent claims 3, 9, and 15 is further directed to the abstract idea of ranking the locations. Dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 are further directed to generating a second takeover request, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 is not further limiting because it does not recite any limitations, which appears to be from a markup error: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 10-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe of US 20200239027 A1, filed 07/30/2020, hereinafter “Watanabe”, in view of Oba of US 20220009524 A1, filed 10/23/2019, hereinafter “Oba”.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches:
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (See at least Fig. 1 & [0033]: “The vehicle control ECU 40 executes the automated driving control for driving the vehicle 12 to a destination without requiring driving operations (acceleration, deceleration, and steering) made by the driver, and includes a central processing unit (CPU). The vehicle control ECU 40 includes an input/output device 120, a computation device 122, and a storage device 124.”)
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data; (See at least Fig. 3, [0044]: “The host vehicle 12, which is located at a current host vehicle position Pv prior to reaching a branching guidance sign position Pa where a branching guidance sign (direction guidance and distance guidance to a branching point reference position Pd) is provided roughly 2 [km] in front of the branching point reference position Pd at which a branching lane 302 starts, is traveling along a target trajectory 301 indicated by the dashed-line arrow and created by the action planning unit 206, and is about to pass the branching reference position Pd” & [0038]: “…Based on the image information from the cameras 60…lane branching points and the like are recognized.”)
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event; (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “When making the lane change from the main line 322 into the branching lane 302, a driving takeover deadline position Pc is provided.”)
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location (See at least Fig. 3 & [0048-0049]: “According to the present embodiment, to an occupant of the host vehicle 12 which is traveling in the main line 320 under automated driving performed by the vehicle control ECU 40 (system), basically, a notification is issued at a notification position Pb of an appropriate driving takeover request (a takeover request from automated driving to driving assistance), and switching over to manual driving by the driver is permitted until reaching a deadline position (scheduled switching point) Pc of the driving takeover. In this instance, the notification position Pb varies depending on the quantity of other vehicles 350, traffic conditions such as the presence or absence of a lane change, and the like…”)
implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly teach:
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
Oba teaches:
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location; (See at least Fig. 26, [0420-0421]: “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover. To this end, the system selects the optimum takeover execution section on the basis of the LDM information of the road environment, that is, what is called local dynamic map (LDM) information that constantly updates, with high density, traveling map information of the road on which the vehicle travels. For example, there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0325-0326]: “FIG. 26 is a diagram illustrating a graph describing a remaining grace time to completion of transition from automatic driving to manual driving. A remaining grace time after the system notifies the driver (manual driving return request notification) at time t0 until reaching the rightmost “takeover limit point” is illustrated along the vertically axis according to the passage of time along a time axis on the horizontal axis…Note that since the vertical axis in FIG. 26 is the remaining grace time during constant speed traveling, the vertical axis can also be regarded as the distance to an actual takeover limit point.”)
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and (See at least [0764-0767]: “In a case where a switching point to a manual driving section is approaching, the optimum return notification point calculation unit 331 calculates an optimum timing for notifying the driver of takeover. As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process. That is, each of the following pieces of information is used. Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary Information 322=information of surrounding detour possible roads, temporary stop possible areas, waiting for leading vehicle, SOS rescue request, and temporary waiting spot outside the itinerary route”.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe’s system with Oba’s technique of determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location and determining a preferred manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion. Doing so would be obvious since “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover” (See [0420] of Oba).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Watanabe additionally teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instruction further includes an instruction that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate a second takeover request at the default manual takeover request location with a higher intensity than the takeover request at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 3, [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102” & [0078-0079]: “Next, in step S7, until reaching the deadline position Pc, a determination is made through the contact sensor 108 as to whether or not the driver has grasped the steering wheel. In the case of not grasping the steering wheel, a hands-on request of “Please Grasp the Steering Wheel” (by way of voice through the speaker 104 and/or by way of a display on the display 103 or the meter panel 102) is continued until such grasping takes place, or until reaching the deadline position Pc at a maximum.”)
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on road type or road geometry. (See at least [0421]: “…there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process…Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on traffic controls. (See at least [0421]: “…there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process…Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on traffic conditions. (See at least [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process. That is, each of the following pieces of information is used. Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 8 and 11, Watanabe teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: (See at least Fig. 1 & [0033]: “The vehicle control ECU 40 executes the automated driving control for driving the vehicle 12 to a destination without requiring driving operations (acceleration, deceleration, and steering) made by the driver, and includes a central processing unit (CPU). The vehicle control ECU 40 includes an input/output device 120, a computation device 122, and a storage device 124.”)
identify a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data; (See at least Fig. 3, [0044]: “The host vehicle 12, which is located at a current host vehicle position Pv prior to reaching a branching guidance sign position Pa where a branching guidance sign (direction guidance and distance guidance to a branching point reference position Pd) is provided roughly 2 [km] in front of the branching point reference position Pd at which a branching lane 302 starts, is traveling along a target trajectory 301 indicated by the dashed-line arrow and created by the action planning unit 206, and is about to pass the branching reference position Pd” & [0038]: “…Based on the image information from the cameras 60…lane branching points and the like are recognized.”)
determine a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event; (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “When making the lane change from the main line 322 into the branching lane 302, a driving takeover deadline position Pc is provided.”)
determine a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location (See at least Fig. 3 & [0048-0049]: “According to the present embodiment, to an occupant of the host vehicle 12 which is traveling in the main line 320 under automated driving performed by the vehicle control ECU 40 (system), basically, a notification is issued at a notification position Pb of an appropriate driving takeover request (a takeover request from automated driving to driving assistance), and switching over to manual driving by the driver is permitted until reaching a deadline position (scheduled switching point) Pc of the driving takeover. In this instance, the notification position Pb varies depending on the quantity of other vehicles 350, traffic conditions such as the presence or absence of a lane change, and the like…”)
implement a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly teach:
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
Oba teaches:
determine a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location; (See at least [0420-0421]: “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover. To this end, the system selects the optimum takeover execution section on the basis of the LDM information of the road environment, that is, what is called local dynamic map (LDM) information that constantly updates, with high density, traveling map information of the road on which the vehicle travels. For example, there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0385-0386]: “FIG. 26 is a diagram illustrating a graph describing a remaining grace time to completion of transition from automatic driving to manual driving. A remaining grace time after the system notifies the driver (manual driving return request notification) at time t0 until reaching the rightmost “takeover limit point” is illustrated along the vertically axis according to the passage of time along a time axis on the horizontal axis…Note that since the vertical axis in FIG. 26 is the remaining grace time during constant speed traveling, the vertical axis can also be regarded as the distance to an actual takeover limit point.”)
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and (See at least [0764-0767]: “In a case where a switching point to a manual driving section is approaching, the optimum return notification point calculation unit 331 calculates an optimum timing for notifying the driver of takeover. As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process. That is, each of the following pieces of information is used. Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary Information 322=information of surrounding detour possible roads, temporary stop possible areas, waiting for leading vehicle, SOS rescue request, and temporary waiting spot outside the itinerary route”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe’s system with Oba’s technique of determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location and determining a preferred manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion. Doing so would be obvious since “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover” (See [0420] of Oba).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Watanabe additionally teaches:
wherein the instructions further includes an instruction that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to generate a second takeover request at the default manual takeover request location with a higher intensity than the takeover request at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 3, [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102” & [0078-0079]: “Next, in step S7, until reaching the deadline position Pc, a determination is made through the contact sensor 108 as to whether or not the driver has grasped the steering wheel. In the case of not grasping the steering wheel, a hands-on request of “Please Grasp the Steering Wheel” (by way of voice through the speaker 104 and/or by way of a display on the display 103 or the meter panel 102) is continued until such grasping takes place, or until reaching the deadline position Pc at a maximum.”)
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on traffic controls. (See at least [0421]: “…there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process…Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe teaches:
A method, comprising: identifying a potential disengagement event based on vehicle sensor data; (See at least Fig. 3, [0044]: “The host vehicle 12, which is located at a current host vehicle position Pv prior to reaching a branching guidance sign position Pa where a branching guidance sign (direction guidance and distance guidance to a branching point reference position Pd) is provided roughly 2 [km] in front of the branching point reference position Pd at which a branching lane 302 starts, is traveling along a target trajectory 301 indicated by the dashed-line arrow and created by the action planning unit 206, and is about to pass the branching reference position Pd” & [0038]: “…Based on the image information from the cameras 60…lane branching points and the like are recognized.”)
determining a default manual takeover request location based on the potential disengagement event; (See at least Fig. 3 & [0054]: “When making the lane change from the main line 322 into the branching lane 302, a driving takeover deadline position Pc is provided.”)
determining a preferred manual takeover request location prior to to the default manual takeover request location (See at least Fig. 3 & [0048-0049]: “According to the present embodiment, to an occupant of the host vehicle 12 which is traveling in the main line 320 under automated driving performed by the vehicle control ECU 40 (system), basically, a notification is issued at a notification position Pb of an appropriate driving takeover request (a takeover request from automated driving to driving assistance), and switching over to manual driving by the driver is permitted until reaching a deadline position (scheduled switching point) Pc of the driving takeover. In this instance, the notification position Pb varies depending on the quantity of other vehicles 350, traffic conditions such as the presence or absence of a lane change, and the like…”)
implementing a takeover request notification through output system of the vehicle at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 4 & [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102.”)
Watanabe does not explicitly teach:
determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location;
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and
Oba teaches:
determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location; (See at least [0420-0421]: “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover. To this end, the system selects the optimum takeover execution section on the basis of the LDM information of the road environment, that is, what is called local dynamic map (LDM) information that constantly updates, with high density, traveling map information of the road on which the vehicle travels. For example, there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0385-0386]: “FIG. 26 is a diagram illustrating a graph describing a remaining grace time to completion of transition from automatic driving to manual driving. A remaining grace time after the system notifies the driver (manual driving return request notification) at time t0 until reaching the rightmost “takeover limit point” is illustrated along the vertically axis according to the passage of time along a time axis on the horizontal axis…Note that since the vertical axis in FIG. 26 is the remaining grace time during constant speed traveling, the vertical axis can also be regarded as the distance to an actual takeover limit point.”)
…based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion; and (See at least [0764-0767]: “In a case where a switching point to a manual driving section is approaching, the optimum return notification point calculation unit 331 calculates an optimum timing for notifying the driver of takeover. As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process. That is, each of the following pieces of information is used. Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary Information 322=information of surrounding detour possible roads, temporary stop possible areas, waiting for leading vehicle, SOS rescue request, and temporary waiting spot outside the itinerary route”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe’s system with Oba’s technique of determining a set of complexity measures for a set of locations between a vehicle and the default manual takeover request location and determining a preferred manual takeover request location based on selecting a location with a complexity measure satisfying an optimization criterion. Doing so would be obvious since “It is desirable to have the driver take over in a safe section for good awakening and takeover” (See [0420] of Oba).
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Watanabe additionally teaches:
further comprising generating a second takeover request at the default manual takeover request location with a higher intensity than the takeover request at the preferred manual takeover request location. (See at least Fig. 3, [0076]: “When the current host vehicle position Pv during traveling of the host vehicle 12 arrives at the notification position of the driving takeover request (the notification position of it being one minute prior to the driving takeover request, or the notification position of it being 2 km prior to the driving takeover request) Pb, then in step S6, after a synthesized sound of “Bong” is issued from the branching assist control unit 222 through the speaker 104, a notification is issued by way of voice guidance that “Branching Assist Will be Performed When Turn Signal Lever is Operated”. The notification of the driving takeover request may also be performed by way of the display 103 and/or by way of an indication on the meter panel 102” & [0078-0079]: “Next, in step S7, until reaching the deadline position Pc, a determination is made through the contact sensor 108 as to whether or not the driver has grasped the steering wheel. In the case of not grasping the steering wheel, a hands-on request of “Please Grasp the Steering Wheel” (by way of voice through the speaker 104 and/or by way of a display on the display 103 or the meter panel 102) is continued until such grasping takes place, or until reaching the deadline position Pc at a maximum.”)
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on road type or road geometry. (See at least [0421]: “…there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process…Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on traffic controls. (See at least [0421]: “…there is acquired, from the LDM, section information in which the takeover is completed in a straight road section where takeover can be safely performed from automatic driving to manual driving…” & [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process…Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on traffic conditions. (See at least [0765-0766]: “As illustrated in the diagram, various pieces of information 321 to 326 are used for this timing calculation process. That is, each of the following pieces of information is used. Information 321=advance LDM information, route straight line emergency evacuation area information, full margin information, safe takeover section information, and evacuation possible section information along the itinerary”)
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Oba additionally teaches:
wherein the optimization criterion is based on weather conditions. (See at least [0197]: “…the outside-vehicle information detection unit 141 performs a detection process of a surrounding environment of the own vehicle. The surrounding environment as a detection target includes, for example, weather…” & [0771]: “Information 325=in-vehicle autonomous sensing information, information acquired by a radar, a LIDAR, a camera, ToF, a sonar, V2V communication (vehicle-to-vehicle communication), and the like.”)
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Oba and further in view of Hashimoto of US 20220001888 A1, filed 06/30/2021, hereinafter “Hashimoto”.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Watanabe and Oba in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the machine-readable instruction to determine the preferred manual takeover request location further includes to rank the locations.
Hashimoto teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instruction to determine the preferred manual takeover request location further includes to rank the locations. (See at least Figs. 4A-4B, [0069]: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 4A, the width-varying zone detector 41 first refers to the map information, and detects a location where the width W1 of the acceleration lane road 50 begins to vary before the merging location M, between the current location P1 of the vehicle 10 and the merging location M, as the start location of the width-varying zone P2” & [0040]: “Comparing the situations depicted in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, the notification location setting device 22 sets notification locations P5, Q5 according to the shape of each width-varying zone, so as to lengthen the lengths of the zones C1, C2 of the acceleration lane road 70 which has a width guaranteed to allow travel of the vehicle 10 between the notification location and the merging location. Specifically, since the location where the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow is at an earlier point in FIG. 1B, the notification location Q5 is set to be before the notification location P5. When the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow, this creates more psychological pressure on the driver, and therefore notification is made earlier when the lane change by automatic control cannot be made at the predetermined location…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe and Oba’s system with Hashimoto’s technique of evaluating a measure of complexity of the preferred manual takeover request location. Doing so would be obvious so that the driver can “…be notified of the control switching request at a sufficient point before the width of the traveling road begins to decrease” (See [0006] of Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Watanabe and Oba in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the instruction to determine the preferred manual takeover request location further includes to rank the locations.
Hashimoto teaches:
wherein the instruction to determine the preferred manual takeover request location further includes to rank the locations. (See at least Figs. 4A-4B, [0069]: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 4A, the width-varying zone detector 41 first refers to the map information, and detects a location where the width W1 of the acceleration lane road 50 begins to vary before the merging location M, between the current location P1 of the vehicle 10 and the merging location M, as the start location of the width-varying zone P2” & [0040]: “Comparing the situations depicted in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, the notification location setting device 22 sets notification locations P5, Q5 according to the shape of each width-varying zone, so as to lengthen the lengths of the zones C1, C2 of the acceleration lane road 70 which has a width guaranteed to allow travel of the vehicle 10 between the notification location and the merging location. Specifically, since the location where the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow is at an earlier point in FIG. 1B, the notification location Q5 is set to be before the notification location P5. When the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow, this creates more psychological pressure on the driver, and therefore notification is made earlier when the lane change by automatic control cannot be made at the predetermined location…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe and Oba’s system with Hashimoto’s technique of evaluating a measure of complexity of the preferred manual takeover request location. Doing so would be obvious so that the driver can “…be notified of the control switching request at a sufficient point before the width of the traveling road begins to decrease” (See [0006] of Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the preferred manual takeover request location further includes ranking the locations.
Hashimoto teaches:
wherein determining the preferred manual takeover request location further includes ranking the locations. (See at least Figs. 4A-4B, [0069]: “In the example illustrated in FIG. 4A, the width-varying zone detector 41 first refers to the map information, and detects a location where the width W1 of the acceleration lane road 50 begins to vary before the merging location M, between the current location P1 of the vehicle 10 and the merging location M, as the start location of the width-varying zone P2” & [0040]: “Comparing the situations depicted in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, the notification location setting device 22 sets notification locations P5, Q5 according to the shape of each width-varying zone, so as to lengthen the lengths of the zones C1, C2 of the acceleration lane road 70 which has a width guaranteed to allow travel of the vehicle 10 between the notification location and the merging location. Specifically, since the location where the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow is at an earlier point in FIG. 1B, the notification location Q5 is set to be before the notification location P5. When the width of the width-varying zone begins to narrow, this creates more psychological pressure on the driver, and therefore notification is made earlier when the lane change by automatic control cannot be made at the predetermined location…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe and Oba’s system with Hashimoto’s technique of evaluating a measure of complexity of the preferred manual takeover request location. Doing so would be obvious so that the driver can “…be notified of the control switching request at a sufficient point before the width of the traveling road begins to decrease” (See [0006] of Hashimoto).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Oba and further in view of Wallstedt of US 20200139954 A1, filed 11/06/2018, hereinafter “Wallstedt”.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Watanabe and Ota in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the machine-readable instruction to determine the set of complexity measures involves sliding window analysis.
Wallstedt teaches:
wherein the machine-readable instruction to determine the set of complexity measures involves sliding window analysis. (See at least [0028]: “…the speed planning device may iteratively analyze (e.g., regardless of whether there are changes in elevation or no changes in elevation) upcoming sections of the route as the vehicle traverses the route…” & [0060]: “…speed plans, provided over time, may indicate different speeds at which the vehicle is to traverse a same point or section along the route (e.g., because the section analyzed for each speed plan is a sliding window along the route). In some implementations, a section-by-section speed planning analysis, as described herein, may not detect a steep decline within a section or subsection (e.g., due to the section-by-section speed planning analysis having insufficient granularity)”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe and Oba’s system with Wallstedt’s technique of using sliding window analysis to determine the set of complexity measures. Doing so would be obvious to “iteratively generate and provide speed plans to a vehicle control device to permit the vehicle control device to control the speed of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses a route” (See [0060] of Wallstedt).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe and Oba in combination teach all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Watanabe and Oba in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the set of complexity measures involves sliding window analysis.
Wallstedt teaches:
wherein determining the set of complexity measures involves sliding window analysis. (See at least [0028]: “…the speed planning device may iteratively analyze (e.g., regardless of whether there are changes in elevation or no changes in elevation) upcoming sections of the route as the vehicle traverses the route…” & [0060]: “…speed plans, provided over time, may indicate different speeds at which the vehicle is to traverse a same point or section along the route (e.g., because the section analyzed for each speed plan is a sliding window along the route). In some implementations, a section-by-section speed planning analysis, as described herein, may not detect a steep decline within a section or subsection (e.g., due to the section-by-section speed planning analysis having insufficient granularity)”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Watanabe and Oba’s system with Wallstedt’s technique of using sliding window analysis to determine the set of complexity measures. Doing so would be obvious to “iteratively generate and provide speed plans to a vehicle control device to permit the vehicle control device to control the speed of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses a route” (See [0060] of Wallstedt).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662