DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-13 filed on 07/05/2024 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 08/18/2025. Claims 1 and 3-13 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 9 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 08/18/2025, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) stating “… the claims have been amended to remove the indicated language. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended, are not subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)…” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 9-10 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) stating “… Applicant has amended the Claims to recite a plurality of positions around the vehicle… Applicant therefore requests that claims 1 and 3-13 be allowed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 10-11 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 stating “… Amended claim 1 also recites… control the vehicle according to the traveling track… Controlling the vehicle according to the selected traveling track is impractical to perform in the human mind…” have been considered and are persuasive. However, the limitation of controlling the vehicle according to the traveling track is not recited in independent claim 3. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 4-10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101, but maintains the rejection of claims 3 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 12-14 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 08/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 stating “… Slusar describes "a three-dimensional (3D) risk map illustrating the one or more risk objects… This does not teach generating a degree of travelling risk of the vehicle at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle as recited in amended claim 1… Applicant submits that simply because the map is 3D does not teach determining traveling risk at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle as recited in amended claim 1… Furthermore, Slusar does not describe select the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk as recited in amended claim 1…” have been considered but are moot due to the amendments and added limitations provided above. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stein US 20220204034 A1 (“Stein '034”).
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 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to an electronic control device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 3 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 3 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claim 3 recites the following information:
An electronic control device mounted on a vehicle, the electronic control device being configured to:
acquire information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle, the environmental element including at least a road surface obstacle that is passable by the vehicle on a road surface;
generate a risk map representing a degree of traveling risk of the vehicle at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle based on the information;
determine a traveling track for traveling control for the vehicle based on the risk map, wherein the information includes obstacle information regarding an obstacle that is not passable by the vehicle and road surface obstacle information regarding the road surface obstacle;
generate an obstacle risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to a vehicle body of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the obstacle information;
generate a road surface risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to each of the wheels of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the road surface obstacle information; and
generate a plurality of traveling track candidates, and determines the traveling track based on the degree of traveling risk on the obstacle risk map through which the vehicle body of the vehicle passes in each traveling track candidate and the degree of traveling risk on the road surface risk map through which the wheel of the vehicle passes in each traveling track candidate.
The examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claims, the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that observes and gathers information about an environment outside of a vehicle, generates a risk map for detected objects around a vehicle taking into consideration observed objects that are not passable and a degree of influence on the periphery of a vehicle for objects that a vehicle may travel over, and determines a track for the vehicle to travel based on risks associated with obstacles existing around the vehicle.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to gather data observed objects around a vehicle (i.e., potholes, puddles that a vehicle can carefully travel over, and other vehicles or pedestrians that exist on the road the travelling vehicle is running on that the own vehicle needs to avoid colliding with), generate a risk map for the detected objects that takes into account obstacles that a vehicle may not go over (i.e., other vehicles or pedestrians existing in the travel path of the own vehicle) and a degree of influence on the periphery of the own vehicle when the vehicle travels over observed road obstacles (i.e., running over a pothole and causing an accident or splashing a pedestrian in a case where the vehicle runs over an existing puddle on the road), and determine a traveling track based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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.”
Claim 3 does contain additional elements of an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
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.
Regarding the additional elements of an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose risk of travel determining system environment to automate the vehicle obstacle detection, risk map generating, and travelling track determining components of the system. The additional elements of an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of gathering data from at least one tire sensor for use in the obstacle and road surface risk map generating step and track determining step), and amount to mere transmission and receiving of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses a computing components to perform the process.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claim 3 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 integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of acquiring information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 limitations of acquiring information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processing unit is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-12 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claim 3, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 11-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 3. Therefore, claims 3 and 11-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slusar US 20170089710 A1 (“Slusar”).
For claim 3, Slusar discloses an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “… a system comprising one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle and configured to detect sensor information. The system may also include a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information…”), the electronic control device being configured to:
acquire information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “…a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information; analyze the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects…”), the environmental element including at least a road surface obstacle that is passable by the vehicle on a road surface (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate a risk map representing a degree of traveling risk of the vehicle at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle based on the information (See at least [0007] – “The system may also include a first computing device configured to …analyze the sensor information … generate a three-dimensional (3D) risk map illustrating the one or more risk objects … within a virtual world representation of the vehicle's surroundings; and display the 3D risk map to a passenger in the vehicle…” and [0065] of Slusar – “… the risk map generation system 302 may associate the road segment a vehicle is traveling on to the risk value at step 630… risk value may include analyzing the road segment or risk map the vehicle 308 is traveling along or through, identifying one or more risk objects …calculating a risk value based on the number of risk objects … located on the road segment … For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over);
determine a traveling track for traveling control for the vehicle based on the risk map (See at least [0045] of Slusar – “… a risk map generation system 302 may create a risk map which provides different routes to a user to mitigate risk. For example, a generated risk map may contain different routes of travel based on the road segments a user may travel to arrive at their end destination. Under this example, each route may correlate to a different risk value based on the number and the type of risk objects located on each route”), wherein the information includes obstacle information regarding an obstacle that is not passable by the vehicle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “… The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as animals, pedestrians…”) and road surface obstacle information regarding the road surface obstacle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate an obstacle risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to a vehicle body of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the obstacle information (See at least [0054]-[0059] of Slusar – “…a map generation engine 320 may assemble a risk map that augments reality in order to show a visual representation of the vehicle's 308 environment… FIG. 5 illustrates examples of point cloud images. Such point cloud images may appear on a risk map. In some aspects, the images on a risk map may be point cloud representations of items deemed to pose a risk to the driver and/or vehicle… the point cloud risk objects may be color-coded or keyed to alert the driver of a potential risk and the severity of the potential risk… Objects may be deemed to be high risk depending on the amount of damage they might cause a vehicle, because of their size or type (e.g., a deer may cause more damage than a squirrel so a deer may be displayed in a way to indicate that it poses a higher risk… if an animal 510 appears on the risk map, then the driver's seat or the steering wheel of the vehicle may vibrate...”);
generate a road surface risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to each of the wheels of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the road surface obstacle information (See at least [0060]-[0065] of Slusar – “… FIG. 6 illustrates a method for generating a risk map and an alert that may be provided to a user. The method may begin at step 605. At step 605, a risk map generation system 302 may receive sensor information from various sensors (e.g. sensor(s) 304… the risk map generation system 302 may have different groupings of risk objects (which may be categorized by the characteristics of the risk objects) correlated to predetermined values… the risk value assigned may represent the likelihood of a risk object causing an accident. For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over); and
generate a plurality of traveling track candidates (See at least [0045] of Slusar – “… a risk map generation system 302 may create a risk map which provides different routes to a user to mitigate risk…”), and determines the traveling track based on the degree of traveling risk on the obstacle risk map through which the vehicle body of the vehicle passes in each traveling track candidate and the degree of traveling risk on the road surface risk map through which the wheel of the vehicle passes in each traveling track candidate (See at least [0074]-[0075] of Slusar – “… the updated risk map may determine and provide alternative routes for a user to travel that contain less risk (e.g. a lower risk value may be associated with the alternative route… a risk map generation system 302 may use the updated risk map to offer a user a new or alternative route for traveling to their destination…”).
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, 4, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slusar in view of Stein US 20220204034 A1 (“Stein '034”).
For claim 1, Slusar discloses an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “… a system comprising one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle and configured to detect sensor information. The system may also include a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information…”) that identifies passable obstacles based on wheel paths (See at least [0033]-[0035] – “… The sensor information may comprise data that represents the external surroundings of the vehicle 208… The system may gather additional information, such as environmental information, road information… Road information may comprise data about the physical attributes of the road … a pothole(s), a slit(s), an oil slick(s), a speed bump(s), an elevation(s) or unevenness … wet, slick, icy…number of railroad crossings…” and [0056] of Slusar – “… FIG. 4 illustrates a user interface 400. The user interface 400 may be displayed to a user and may illustrate aspects of a risk map… comprise images or figures… may include images of … an oil slick 404, a pothole 406… these images may indicate a risk of the road segment or route being travel by a vehicle(s) 408… the location of these images within the user interface 400 may be determined based on the sensor information received by risk map generation system…”), the electronic control device being configured to:
acquire information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “…a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information; analyze the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects…”), the environmental element including at least a road surface obstacle that is passable by the vehicle on a road surface (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate a risk map representing a degree of traveling risk of the vehicle at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle based on the information (See at least [0007] – “The system may also include a first computing device configured to …analyze the sensor information … generate a three-dimensional (3D) risk map illustrating the one or more risk objects … within a virtual world representation of the vehicle's surroundings; and display the 3D risk map to a passenger in the vehicle…” and [0065] of Slusar – “… the risk map generation system 302 may associate the road segment a vehicle is traveling on to the risk value at step 630… risk value may include analyzing the road segment or risk map the vehicle 308 is traveling along or through, identifying one or more risk objects …calculating a risk value based on the number of risk objects … located on the road segment … For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over);
determine a traveling track for traveling control for the vehicle based on the risk map (See at least [0045] of Slusar – “… a risk map generation system 302 may create a risk map which provides different routes to a user to mitigate risk. For example, a generated risk map may contain different routes of travel based on the road segments a user may travel to arrive at their end destination. Under this example, each route may correlate to a different risk value based on the number and the type of risk objects located on each route”), wherein the information includes obstacle information regarding an obstacle that is not passable by the vehicle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “… The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as animals, pedestrians…”) and road surface obstacle information regarding the road surface obstacle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate an obstacle risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to a vehicle body of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the obstacle information (See at least [0054]-[0059] of Slusar – “…a map generation engine 320 may assemble a risk map that augments reality in order to show a visual representation of the vehicle's 308 environment… FIG. 5 illustrates examples of point cloud images. Such point cloud images may appear on a risk map. In some aspects, the images on a risk map may be point cloud representations of items deemed to pose a risk to the driver and/or vehicle… the point cloud risk objects may be color-coded or keyed to alert the driver of a potential risk and the severity of the potential risk… Objects may be deemed to be high risk depending on the amount of damage they might cause a vehicle, because of their size or type (e.g., a deer may cause more damage than a squirrel so a deer may be displayed in a way to indicate that it poses a higher risk… if an animal 510 appears on the risk map, then the driver's seat or the steering wheel of the vehicle may vibrate...”);
generate a road surface risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to each of the wheels of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the road surface obstacle information (See at least [0060]-[0065] of Slusar – “… FIG. 6 illustrates a method for generating a risk map and an alert that may be provided to a user. The method may begin at step 605. At step 605, a risk map generation system 302 may receive sensor information from various sensors (e.g. sensor(s) 304… the risk map generation system 302 may have different groupings of risk objects (which may be categorized by the characteristics of the risk objects) correlated to predetermined values… the risk value assigned may represent the likelihood of a risk object causing an accident. For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over).
Slusar fails to specifically disclose select the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track.
However, Stein '034, in the same field of endeavor teaches select the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track (See at least [0037]-[0047] of Stein '034 – “… the target trajectory T is generated and the vehicle 1 is guided on the route F as a function of the generated target trajectory T, in particular by an automated … guidance of the vehicle 1. If an uneven surface is detected on the route F, the target trajectory T is generated as a function of the detected uneven surface… generation of the target trajectory T in such a way that … that the transverse uneven surface Q is passed over at a speed that is reduced compared to a speed of the vehicle 1 before the transverse uneven surface Q is detected. In other words, the speed is advantageously reduced before reaching and driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to further reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2… transverse uneven surface Q can be detected, as already described above, for example by means of the environment detection sensor system 2 of the vehicle 1 and/or by means of the digital map… the target trajectory T is advantageously generated additionally as a function of the detected object O when such an object O is detected on and/or next to the route F. This avoids hazards … or collisions with such objects O… the target trajectory T… as shown by way of example in FIG. 4, is then generated in such a way that the object O is driven around and the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over with a time delay for the wheels of each individual axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle… This causes the vehicle 1 to move away from the side of the route F on which the object O is positioned… so that it can be driven around safely….”). Thus, Slusar discloses a system for a vehicle that identifies upcoming potential risks on a route of travel and identifies alternative routes of travel for the vehicle to select a route with a lower risk to reach a destination based on a generated risk map with determined risk levels for the detected risk objects, while Stein '034 teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that generates a target trajectory for the vehicle to travel over a speed bump identified on a map in a manner that reduces the vertical accelerations experienced by the wheels of the vehicle and avoids a hazard/collision risk with an object on the side of the road and controls the vehicle as a function of the trajectory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic control device as disclosed in Slusar to include the feature of selecting the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track as taught by Stein '034, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drive the vehicle over a speed bump with a time delay for the wheels of the vehicle while also driving around an object on the side of the road safely as specified in at least [0046]-[0074] of Stein '034.
For claim 4, Slusar discloses an electronic control device mounted on a vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “… a system comprising one or more sensors coupled to a vehicle and configured to detect sensor information. The system may also include a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information…”), the electronic control device configured to:
acquire information regarding an environmental element around the vehicle (See at least [0007] of Slusar – “…a first computing device configured to communicate with the one or more sensors to receive the sensor information; analyze the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects…”), the environmental element including at least a road surface obstacle that is passable by the vehicle on a road surface (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate a risk map representing a degree of traveling risk of the vehicle at a plurality of positions around the vehicle corresponding to wheels of the vehicle based on the information (See at least [0007] – “The system may also include a first computing device configured to …analyze the sensor information … generate a three-dimensional (3D) risk map illustrating the one or more risk objects … within a virtual world representation of the vehicle's surroundings; and display the 3D risk map to a passenger in the vehicle…” and [0065] of Slusar – “… the risk map generation system 302 may associate the road segment a vehicle is traveling on to the risk value at step 630… risk value may include analyzing the road segment or risk map the vehicle 308 is traveling along or through, identifying one or more risk objects …calculating a risk value based on the number of risk objects … located on the road segment … For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over);
determine a traveling track for traveling control for the vehicle based on the risk map (See at least [0045] of Slusar – “… a risk map generation system 302 may create a risk map which provides different routes to a user to mitigate risk. For example, a generated risk map may contain different routes of travel based on the road segments a user may travel to arrive at their end destination. Under this example, each route may correlate to a different risk value based on the number and the type of risk objects located on each route”);
estimate a degree of influence of the road surface obstacle on traveling of the vehicle based on a characteristic of the road surface obstacle indicated by the information and a traveling state of the vehicle (See at least [0060]-[0065] of Slusar – “… FIG. 6 illustrates a method for generating a risk map and an alert that may be provided to a user. The method may begin at step 605. At step 605, a risk map generation system 302 may receive sensor information from various sensors (e.g. sensor(s) 304… the risk map generation system 302 may generate a risk map using only the sensor information related to the physical attributes of the road segment being traveled by the vehicle 308 …the risk map generation system 302 may have different groupings of risk objects (which may be categorized by the characteristics of the risk objects) correlated to predetermined values… the risk value assigned may represent the likelihood of a risk object causing an accident. For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…”), wherein the information includes obstacle information regarding an obstacle that is not passable by the vehicle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “… The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as animals, pedestrians…”) and road surface obstacle information regarding the road surface obstacle (See at least Abstract of Slusar – “….The processing may include analyzing the sensor information to identify one or more risk objects, such as … potholes...”);
generate an obstacle risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to a vehicle body of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the obstacle information (See at least [0054]-[0059] of Slusar – “…a map generation engine 320 may assemble a risk map that augments reality in order to show a visual representation of the vehicle's 308 environment… FIG. 5 illustrates examples of point cloud images. Such point cloud images may appear on a risk map. In some aspects, the images on a risk map may be point cloud representations of items deemed to pose a risk to the driver and/or vehicle… the point cloud risk objects may be color-coded or keyed to alert the driver of a potential risk and the severity of the potential risk… Objects may be deemed to be high risk depending on the amount of damage they might cause a vehicle, because of their size or type (e.g., a deer may cause more damage than a squirrel so a deer may be displayed in a way to indicate that it poses a higher risk… if an animal 510 appears on the risk map, then the driver's seat or the steering wheel of the vehicle may vibrate...”);
generate a road surface risk map representing the degree of traveling risk related to each of the wheels of the vehicle at the plurality of positions around the vehicle based on the road surface obstacle information (See at least [0060]-[0065] of Slusar – “… FIG. 6 illustrates a method for generating a risk map and an alert that may be provided to a user. The method may begin at step 605. At step 605, a risk map generation system 302 may receive sensor information from various sensors (e.g. sensor(s) 304… the risk map generation system 302 may have different groupings of risk objects (which may be categorized by the characteristics of the risk objects) correlated to predetermined values… the risk value assigned may represent the likelihood of a risk object causing an accident. For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…” Examiner notes that pot holes present a risk to the wheels of a vehicle when driven over);
determine the degree of traveling risk in the road surface risk map based on the degree of influence (See at least [0060]-[0065] of Slusar – “… FIG. 6 illustrates a method for generating a risk map and an alert that may be provided to a user. The method may begin at step 605. At step 605, a risk map generation system 302 may receive sensor information from various sensors (e.g. sensor(s) 304… the risk map generation system 302 may have different groupings of risk objects (which may be categorized by the characteristics of the risk objects) correlated to predetermined values… the risk value assigned may represent the likelihood of a risk object causing an accident. For example, a pothole with a 2 ft diameter may get a higher risk value than a pot hole with a 1 ft diameter…”).
Slusar fails to specifically disclose select the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track.
However, Stein '034, in the same field of endeavor teaches select the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track (See at least [0037]-[0047] of Stein '034 – “… the target trajectory T is generated and the vehicle 1 is guided on the route F as a function of the generated target trajectory T, in particular by an automated … guidance of the vehicle 1. If an uneven surface is detected on the route F, the target trajectory T is generated as a function of the detected uneven surface… generation of the target trajectory T in such a way that … that the transverse uneven surface Q is passed over at a speed that is reduced compared to a speed of the vehicle 1 before the transverse uneven surface Q is detected. In other words, the speed is advantageously reduced before reaching and driving over the transverse uneven surface Q in order to further reduce the vertical pulses 11.1, 11.2… transverse uneven surface Q can be detected, as already described above, for example by means of the environment detection sensor system 2 of the vehicle 1 and/or by means of the digital map… the target trajectory T is advantageously generated additionally as a function of the detected object O when such an object O is detected on and/or next to the route F. This avoids hazards … or collisions with such objects O… the target trajectory T… as shown by way of example in FIG. 4, is then generated in such a way that the object O is driven around and the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over with a time delay for the wheels of each individual axle 1.1, 1.2 of the vehicle… This causes the vehicle 1 to move away from the side of the route F on which the object O is positioned… so that it can be driven around safely….”). Thus, Slusar discloses a system for a vehicle that identifies upcoming potential risks on a route of travel and identifies alternative routes of travel for the vehicle to select a route with a lower risk to reach a destination based on a generated risk map with determined risk levels for the detected risk objects, while Stein '034 teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that generates a target trajectory for the vehicle to travel over a speed bump identified on a map in a manner that reduces the vertical accelerations experienced by the wheels of the vehicle and avoids a hazard/collision risk with an object on the side of the road and controls the vehicle as a function of the trajectory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic control device as disclosed in Slusar to include the feature of selecting the traveling track that passes through the road surface obstacle based on the degrees of traveling risk on each of the obstacle risk map and the road surface risk map and control the vehicle according to the traveling track as taught by Stein '034, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drive the vehicle over a speed bump with a time delay for the wheels of the vehicle while also driving around an object on the side of the road safely as specified in at least [0046]-[0074] of Stein '034.
For claim 11, Slusar fails to specifically disclose wherein the traveling track is determined by prioritizing avoidance of the traveling risk on the obstacle risk map by the vehicle body of the vehicle over avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by the wheel of the vehicle.
However, Stein '034, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the traveling track is determined by prioritizing avoidance of the traveling risk on the obstacle risk map by the vehicle body of the vehicle over avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by the wheel of the vehicle (See at least [0046] of Stein '034 – “… the target trajectory T is advantageously generated additionally as a function of the detected object O when such an object O is detected on and/or next to the route F. This avoids hazards caused by such objects O or collisions with such objects O. Advantageously, the target trajectory T, as shown by way of example in FIG. 4, is then generated in such a way that the object O is driven around and the transverse uneven surface Q is driven over with a time delay for the wheels of each individual axle…”). Thus, Slusar discloses a system for a vehicle that identifies upcoming potential risks on a route of travel and identifies alternative routes of travel for the vehicle to select a route with a lower risk to reach a destination based on a generated risk map for the detected risk objects, while Stein '034 teaches a system for carrying out autonomous operation of a vehicle that follows a path to avoid an obstacle while traversing an uneven surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic control device as disclosed in Slusar to include the feature of determining the traveling track by prioritizing avoidance of the traveling risk on the obstacle risk map by the vehicle body of the vehicle over avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by the wheel of the vehicle as taught by Stein '034, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to drive around an object at the side of the road while transversing an uneven surface with a time delay as specified in at least [0046] of Stein '034.
For claim 12, Slusar fails to specifically disclose wherein the traveling track is determined by distinguishing a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a front wheel of the vehicle and a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a rear wheel of the vehicle.
However, Stein '034, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the traveling track is determined by distinguishing a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a front wheel of the vehicle and a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a rear wheel of the vehicle (See at least [0005] of Stein '034 – “In accordance with the invention, when an uneven surface is detected that runs across the route as a transverse uneven surface, in particular as a speed bump, which spans the route, in particular completely, the target trajectory is generated in such a way that the transverse uneven surface is passed over with a time delay for the wheels of each individual axle of the vehicle”). Thus, Slusar discloses a system for a vehicle that identifies upcoming potential risks on a route of travel and identifies alternative routes of travel for the vehicle to select a route with a lower risk to reach a destination based on a generated risk map for the detected risk objects, while Stein '034 teaches a system for carrying out autonomous operation of a vehicle that follows a path to avoid an obstacle while traversing an uneven surface with a time delay of traversing the uneven surface at an angle such that the front and rear wheels of the vehicle travel over the uneven surface at different times while each of the other wheels do not contact the uneven surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic control device as disclosed in Slusar to include the feature of determining the traveling track by distinguishing a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a front wheel of the vehicle and a priority of avoidance of the traveling risk on the road surface risk map by a rear wheel of the vehicle as taught by Stein '034, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to dampen the vertical accelerations when only one wheel at a time of the vehicle ever crosses the transverse uneven surface Q while the other wheels remain in the same plane as specified in at least [0035] of Stein '034.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slusar in view of Stein '034, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Stein et al. US 20190325595 A1 (“Stein '595”).
For claim 5, Slusar fails to specifically disclose wherein the degree of influence is calculated based on a speed of the vehicle.
However, Stein '595, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the degree of influence is calculated based on a speed of the vehicle (See at least [0161]-[0164] of Stein '595 – “… FIG. 19 is a flow diagram illustrating an example of a method 1900 for computationally determining a current situational scenario for an autonomous vehicle…performed by computational hardware… Operation 1906 may further assess whether any detected pedestrians are within the vicinity (e.g., within “splash range”) of a detected puddle. The pedestrian assessment may be used to computationally determine the degree of preference for taking evasive action in the control of the autonomous vehicle to avoid splashing the pedestrian… In an example, the splash range may be estimated, such as based on … the speed of the vehicle…”). Thus, Slusar discloses a system for a vehicle that identifies upcoming potential risks on a route of travel and identifies alternative routes of travel for the vehicle to select a route with a lower risk to reach a destination based on a generated risk map for the detected risk objects, while Stein '595 teaches a system for modelling situations for an autonomous vehicle that includes estimating a likelihood and a need to take evasive action to avoid splashing a detected pedestrian based on the speed of a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electronic control device as disclosed in Slusar to include the feature