DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 6/26/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 have been amended and claim 6 has been added. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are considered moot because they are directed toward subject matter that has required a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kokaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0377083 A1; hereinafter Kokaki) in view of Seto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0145238 A1; hereinafter Seto) and further in view of Groult (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0110372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kokaki discloses:
A vehicle controller comprising (vehicle system 1, see at least [0036]): a processor configured to (automated driving controller 100 realized by a processor, see at least [0052]):
detect a candidate object on a road surface ahead of a vehicle from an image representing surroundings of the vehicle generated by a camera provided on the vehicle (camera 10 images vicinity of vehicle, see at least [0038]; “object recognizing device 16 may perform a sensor fusion process on results of detection using some or all of the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the finder 14, thereby recognizing a position, a type, a speed, and the like of an object,” see at least [0041]),
control the vehicle to decelerate (if an object is determined to be a no-passage object, the action plan generator determines a target trajectory for urgently stopping, see at least [0064])
Kokaki does not disclose:
detect a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing
determine whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle
control the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle
However, Seto teaches:
detect a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing (calculate the amount of sideways movement required to avoid the object by steering, see at least [0049]) *Examiner sets forth the amount of steering required to avoid an obstacle reads on a “deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle” before and after reaching a position of the obstacle because it is the amount of change required to avoid hitting the obstacle from before the obstacle to the obstacle
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki by adding the amount of movement required taught by Seto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “if a vehicle can avoid an obstacle by steering” (see [0008]).
Additionally, Groult teaches:
determine whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle (warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051]), and
control the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle (control unit 4 causes complete deceleration of vehicle 2 upon warning criterion being fulfilled, warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki and the amount of movement required taught by Seto by adding the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a collision can be prevented with great reliability” (see [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Kokaki discloses:
A method for vehicle control (vehicle control method, see at least [0012]), comprising:
detecting a candidate object on a road surface ahead of a vehicle from an image representing surroundings of the vehicle generated by a camera provided on the vehicle (camera 10 images vicinity of vehicle, see at least [0038]; “object recognizing device 16 may perform a sensor fusion process on results of detection using some or all of the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the finder 14, thereby recognizing a position, a type, a speed, and the like of an object,” see at least [0041]);
controlling the vehicle to decelerate (if an object is determined to be a no-passage object, the action plan generator determines a target trajectory for urgently stopping, see at least [0064])
Kokaki does not disclose:
detecting a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing
determining whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle
controlling the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle.
However, Seto teaches:
detecting a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing (calculate the amount of sideways movement required to avoid the object by steering, see at least [0049]) *Examiner sets forth the amount of steering required to avoid an obstacle reads on a “deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle” before and after reaching a position of the obstacle because it is the amount of change required to avoid hitting the obstacle from before the obstacle to the obstacle
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki by adding the amount of movement required taught by Seto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “if a vehicle can avoid an obstacle by steering” (see [0008]).
Additionally, Groult teaches:
determining whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle (warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051])
controlling the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle (control unit 4 causes complete deceleration of vehicle 2 upon warning criterion being fulfilled, warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki and the amount of movement required taught by Seto by adding the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a collision can be prevented with great reliability” (see [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Kokaki discloses:
A non-transitory recording medium that stores a computer program for vehicle control (“non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a vehicle control program to be executed by an in-vehicle computer,” see at least [0013]), the computer program causing a processor mounted on a vehicle to execute a process comprising (automated driving controller 100 realized by a processor, see at least [0052]):
detecting a candidate object on a road surface ahead of the vehicle from an image representing surroundings of the vehicle generated by a camera provided on the vehicle (camera 10 images vicinity of vehicle, see at least [0038]; “object recognizing device 16 may perform a sensor fusion process on results of detection using some or all of the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the finder 14, thereby recognizing a position, a type, a speed, and the like of an object,” see at least [0041]);
controlling the vehicle to decelerate (if an object is determined to be a no-passage object, the action plan generator determines a target trajectory for urgently stopping, see at least [0064])
Kokaki does not disclose:
detecting a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing
determining whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle
controlling the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle
However, Seto teaches:
detecting a deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle before a timing at which the vehicle reaches a position of the detected candidate object and the orientation of the vehicle after the timing (calculate the amount of sideways movement required to avoid the object by steering, see at least [0049]) *Examiner sets forth the amount of steering required to avoid an obstacle reads on a “deflection angle between an orientation of the vehicle” before and after reaching a position of the obstacle because it is the amount of change required to avoid hitting the obstacle from before the obstacle to the obstacle
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki by adding the amount of movement required taught by Seto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine “if a vehicle can avoid an obstacle by steering” (see [0008]).
Additionally, Groult teaches:
determining whether the deflection angle is more than a predetermined angle (relative position to object can be estimated on basis of steering angle, path covered by vehicle, and steering angle rate, see at least [0011])
controlling the vehicle to decelerate when the orientation of the vehicle has deflected more than the predetermined angle (control unit 4 causes complete deceleration of vehicle 2 upon warning criterion being fulfilled, warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki and the amount of movement required taught by Seto by adding the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a collision can be prevented with great reliability” (see [0025]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kokaki in view of Seto and Groult as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Won (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0316728 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kokaki, Seto and Groult teaches the elements above and Kokaki further discloses:
the processor determines whether the candidate object is detected from a ranging signal generated by a range sensor mounted on the vehicle (radar device 12 detects position of object and finder 14 is light detection and ranging or laser detector, see at least [0039]-[0040])
Kokaki does not disclose:
in the case where the candidate object is not detected from the ranging signal, the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate when the deflection angle is more than the predetermined angle
However, Groult teaches:
the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate when the deflection angle is more than the predetermined angle (control unit 4 causes complete deceleration of vehicle 2 upon warning criterion being fulfilled, warning criterion may include condition that steering angle is larger than a predefined limit value, see at least [0051])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki and the amount of movement required taught by Seto by adding the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a collision can be prevented with great reliability” (see [0025]).
Additionally, Won teaches:
in the case where the candidate object is not detected from the ranging signal, the processor controls the vehicle to decelerate (if target vehicle is not determined by radar but recognized from image data, controller may control vehicle so that vehicle is decelerated, see at least [0099] and step 1180 in Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki, the amount of movement required taught by Seto, and the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult by adding the image condition taught by Won with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to minimize the possibility of the vehicle will fall into the dangerous situation even though the reliability of the fact that the front vehicle actually exists is insufficient” (see [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kokaki, Seto, Groult, and Won teaches the elements above and Kokaki further discloses:
when the candidate object is detected from the ranging signal (“external system recognizer 121 recognizes states of nearby vehicles such as positions, speeds, and accelerations on the basis of information input from the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the finder 14 through the object recognizing device 16,” see at least [0055]), the processor controls the vehicle so that the vehicle avoids the position of the candidate object (in a case in which there is a need to avoid an obstacle, an avoidance trajectory may be generated, see at least [0014]-[0015], [0062], [0105]; action plan generator executes automated driving on the basis of the determined target trajectory, see at least [0107] and Fig. 15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kokaki in view of Seto and Groult as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Heyl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0001917 A1; hereinafter Heyl).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kokaki, Seto, and Groult teaches the elements above and Kokaki further discloses:
identify height and width of an object, see at least [0083]
determine object can be overstepped, see at last [0089] and Fig. 10
The combination of Kokaki, Seto, and Groult does not explicitly disclose:
the processor detects the deflection angle in a pitch direction of the vehicle
However, Heyl teaches:
the processor detects the deflection angle in a pitch direction of the vehicle (detect pitch motions from driving over an obstacle, see at least [0036] and [0038]-[0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driving of a vehicle along a trajectory disclosed by Kokaki, the amount of movement required taught by Seto, and the steering angle predefined limit value taught by Groult by adding pitch motion determination taught by Heyl with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a measure for protecting the vehicle behind, its passengers, and also the obstacle, where applicable, can be proactively initiated in that vehicle” (see [0016]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662