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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on March 9, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on March 9, 2026.
Claims 1-31 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-31 are rejected.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7, 24-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431), further in view of Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0152807).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431), further in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0186403).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431) and Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0186403), further in view of Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0152807).
Claim 16-19, 21-23, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Switkes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0155309).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-31 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431).
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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. An apparatus for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle, comprising:
at least one memory; and
a control engine; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and the control engine, the at least one processor configured to: determine a manual interaction with the vehicle;
determine, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an error between a setpoint value of a parameter and a current value of the parameter; and wherein the control engine is configured to accumulate values associated with the error;
determine whether to accumulate values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; and
cause the control engine to control at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determine a manual interaction with the vehicle; determine, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an error between a setpoint value of a parameter and a current value of the parameter; and wherein the control engine is configured to accumulate values associated with the error; determine whether to accumulate values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “at least one memory” and “at least one processor”. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory” and “at least one processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “at least one memory” and “at least one processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the limitations encompass a person visually determining a manual interaction with the vehicle, such as seeing a driver turn the steering wheel, and mentally determining an error between a predefined parameter and a current parameter. For example, it could be visually determined that the driver is currently turning the steering wheel too far for the necessary maneuver, thereby creating an error. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one memory,” “at least one processor,” and “control engine” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of a control engine; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and the control engine, the at least one processor; and cause the control engine to control at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error.
The “at least one memory,” “a control engine,” and “at least one processor” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The “at least one memory,” “a control engine,” and “at least one processor” are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps. Additionally, the limitation “cause the control engine to control” is merely directed to the step of causing an intended result and does not positively recite the controlling step. For example, transmitting data may cause a control engine to perform control but merely amounts to data output, which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 24-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses an apparatus for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle, comprising:
at least one memory; and (Fujii ¶ 73)
a control engine; and (Fujii in at least ¶ 76 discloses an “engine ECU 50”)
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and the control engine , the at least one processor configured to (Fujii ¶ 73 discloses “The CPU [i.e., a processor] executes instructions (programs and routines) stored in the ROM to realize various functions”): determine a manual interaction with the vehicle; (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel”)
determine, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an error between a setpoint value of a parameter and a current value of the parameter; and (Fujii ¶ 56 discloses “the second calculation unit calculates the deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” [i.e., setpoint value of a parameter] and the “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit” [i.e., current value of the parameter]”)
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
wherein the control engine is configured to accumulate values associated with the error;
determine whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; for controlling at least one function of the vehicle; and
cause the control engine to control at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination to stop accumulating values associated with the error.
However, Shirozono discloses:
wherein [a control process] is configured to accumulate values associated with the error; (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses that “deviation [i.e., error] due to integration is deviation accumulated by feedback control (integral control)”)
determine whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; and (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses preventing [i.e., stopping] “accumulation of deviation due to integration even when [i.e., upon determining that] the steering control amount correction coefficient α becomes zero (the manual steering state by the driver)” wherein “the deviation due to integration is deviation accumulated by feedback control (integral control)”)
cause the control engine to control at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination to stop accumulating values associated with the error. (Shirozono Fig. 14 depicts that the feedback control results in controlling the steering actuator by the steering controller 13, which is based on a calculated steering control amount for the vehicle to follow a target traveling line. Also see corresponding ¶ 99.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control engine of Fujii with being configured to accumulate values associated with the error, as disclosed by Shirozono, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to eliminate a deviation amount from the target vehicle state quantity Ptg, and the accuracy in following the target traveling line is increased and steering of the driver is assisted, to allow natural and stable lane keeping control (Shirozono ¶ 106).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control engine of Fujii with stopping accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction, as disclosed by Shirozono, with reasonable expectation of success, so that the control amount does not abruptly increase and it is thus possible to smoothly return the state to the target traveling line following control state (Shirozono ¶ 105), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to determine the manual interaction with the vehicle based on input associated with a driver interaction with a steering wheel of the vehicle. (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel,” such that the steering amount is “through a manual operation of the steering wheel,” see ¶ 4)
Regarding claim 3, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the parameter includes a position associated with a pre-determined path for the vehicle. (Fujii ¶ 142 discloses “the driving support ECU 10 determines/specifies a target trajectory function for defining/determining the target trajectory [i.e., a pre-determined path] of the own vehicle,” wherein the route guidance is performed based on the current time point of the GPS signal, see ¶ 106 “the navigation ECU 70 includes a GPS receiver 71 configured to receive a GPS signal for detecting a current position of the own vehicle”)
Regarding claim 4, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to: output at least one configuration request for controlling the at least one function of the vehicle based on accumulation of the error. (Fujii ¶ 56 discloses “if the actual lateral position of the own vehicle does not greatly deviate from the target lateral position in the lane change direction [i.e., based on the accumulation of the error], the target trajectory function calculated at the start of the lane change assist control may be used as it is [i.e., controlling a function of the vehicle]”)
Regarding claim 5, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
the at least one configuration request includes a steering request for controlling a direction of the vehicle along a pre-determined path. (Fujii ¶ 142 discloses a driving support ECU 10 that determines a target trajectory function for defining a target trajectory [i.e., a configuration request], such that “The target trajectory is a trajectory along which the own vehicle is to be moved.” Also see ¶ 184 “the driving support ECU 10 can have the own vehicle travel along (according to) the target trajectory”)
Regarding claim 6, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the determination whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error is based on a comparison of the value of the error and a threshold value. (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses preventing [i.e., stopping] “accumulation of deviation due to integration even when [i.e., upon determining that] the steering control amount correction coefficient α becomes zero (the manual steering state by the driver)” wherein “the deviation due to integration is deviation accumulated by feedback control (integral control)”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control engine of Fujii with stopping accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction, as disclosed by Shirozono, with reasonable expectation of success, so that the control amount does not abruptly increase and it is thus possible to smoothly return the state to the target traveling line following control state (Shirozono ¶ 105), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 7, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to: determine a first difference between a value associated with the error and the setpoint value of the parameter (Fujii ¶¶ 54-55 discloses calculating a deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” and an “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit” [i.e., a first difference associated with an error], wherein the deviation is equal to or higher than a threshold [i.e., a setpoint value] and the actual lateral position) is less than a second difference between a prior value associated with the error and the setpoint value; and, (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses that when the lateral position of the own vehicle is deviated to an opposite side of a target lane, the “deviation amount ... is increased.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that deviation amount being increased indicates that the latter difference is greater than the prior difference; therefore, the first difference is less than a second difference between the prior value and the threshold.)
determine to accumulate the values associated with the error based on the first difference being less than the second difference. (Fujii ¶ 146 discloses that as the deviation amount is increased, [i.e., the first difference is less than the second difference], the target lane change time period is decreased. The target lane change time period is used to calculate the target trajectory, see ¶¶ 36-39, therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the values associated with the deviation are stored in order to perform the calculations.)
Regarding claim 24, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses a method for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle, comprising:
determining a manual interaction with the vehicle; (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel”)
determining, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an error between a setpoint value of a parameter and a current value of the parameter; and (Fujii ¶ 56 discloses “the second calculation unit calculates the deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” [i.e., setpoint value of a parameter] and the “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit” [i.e., current value of the parameter]”)
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
wherein a control engine is configured to accumulate values associated with the error;
determining whether to stop accumulating values associated with error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; and
controlling, by the control engine, at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination to stop accumulating values associated with the error.
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
wherein the control engine is configured to accumulate values associated with the error;
determine whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; for controlling at least one function of the vehicle; and
controlling, by the control engine, at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination to stop accumulating values associated with the error.
However, Shirozono discloses:
wherein [a control process] is configured to accumulate values associated with the error; (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses that “deviation [i.e., error] due to integration is deviation accumulated by feedback control (integral control)”)
determine whether to stop accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction; and (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses preventing [i.e., stopping] “accumulation of deviation due to integration even when [i.e., upon determining that] the steering control amount correction coefficient α becomes zero (the manual steering state by the driver)” wherein “the deviation due to integration is deviation accumulated by feedback control (integral control)”)
controlling, by the control engine, at least one function of the vehicle based on the determination to stop accumulating values associated with the error. (Shirozono Fig. 14 depicts that the feedback control results in controlling the steering actuator by the steering controller 13, which is based on a calculated steering control amount for the vehicle to follow a target traveling line. Also see corresponding ¶ 99.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control engine of Fujii with being configured to accumulate values associated with the error, as disclosed by Shirozono, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to eliminate a deviation amount from the target vehicle state quantity Ptg, and the accuracy in following the target traveling line is increased and steering of the driver is assisted, to allow natural and stable lane keeping control (Shirozono ¶ 106).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control engine of Fujii with stopping accumulating values associated with the error based on a value of the error and the determination of the manual interaction, as disclosed by Shirozono, with reasonable expectation of success, so that the control amount does not abruptly increase and it is thus possible to smoothly return the state to the target traveling line following control state (Shirozono ¶ 105), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 25, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising:
determining the manual interaction with the vehicle based on input associated with a driver interaction with a steering wheel of the vehicle. (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel,” such that the steering amount is “through a manual operation of the steering wheel,” see ¶ 4)
Regarding claim 26, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the method of claim 24, wherein:
the parameter includes a position associated with a pre-determined path for the vehicle. (Fujii ¶ 142 discloses “the driving support ECU 10 determines/specifies a target trajectory function for defining/determining the target trajectory [i.e., a pre-determined path] of the own vehicle,” wherein the route guidance is performed based on the current time point of the GPS signal, see ¶ 106 “the navigation ECU 70 includes a GPS receiver 71 configured to receive a GPS signal for detecting a current position of the own vehicle”)
Regarding claim 27, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising:
outputting at least one configuration request for controlling the at least one function of the vehicle based on accumulation of the error. (Fujii ¶ 56 discloses “if the actual lateral position of the own vehicle does not greatly deviate from the target lateral position in the lane change direction [i.e., based on the accumulation of the error], the target trajectory function calculated at the start of the lane change assist control may be used as it is [i.e., controlling a function of the vehicle]”)
Regarding claim 28, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the method of claim 27, wherein:
the at least one configuration request includes a steering request for controlling a direction of the vehicle along a pre-determined path. (Fujii ¶ 142 discloses a driving support ECU 10 that determines a target trajectory function for defining a target trajectory [i.e., a configuration request], such that “The target trajectory is a trajectory along which the own vehicle is to be moved.” Also see ¶ 184 “the driving support ECU 10 can have the own vehicle travel along (according to) the target trajectory”)
Regarding claim 31, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the controller comprises an integral control engine. (Fujii in at least ¶ 76 discloses an “engine ECU 50”)
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431), further in view of Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0152807).
Regarding claim 8, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to: determine a third difference between a subsequent value associated with the error and the setpoint value of the parameter is greater than fourth difference between at least one prior value associated with the error and the setpoint value; and (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses that when the lateral position of the own vehicle is deviated to an opposite side of a target lane, the “deviation amount ... is increased.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that deviation amount being increased indicates that the latter difference is greater than the prior difference; therefore, the first difference is less than a second difference between the prior value and the threshold. Fujii ¶ 183 discloses that the process for calculating the target lateral state amount in steps S15-S20 repeat; therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first difference and second difference would be a third difference and fourth difference, respectively, upon repeating the process. Also see Fig. 5.)
Fujii in combination with Shirozono does not expressly disclose:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference.
However, Song discloses:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference. (Song ¶ 84 discloses “Data that should not be included in clustering, such as driving data with a large error, must be excluded”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the use of data from Fujii, in the combination of Fujii and Shirozono, with stopping accumulation of values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference as disclosed by Song, with reasonable expectation of success, to reduce an error of a finally calculated travel route obtained (Song ¶ 84), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to: determine a first difference between a value associated with the error and the setpoint value of the parameter (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses that when the lateral position of the own vehicle is deviated to an opposite side of a target lane, the “deviation amount ... is increased.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that deviation amount being increased indicates that the latter difference is greater than the prior difference; therefore, the first difference is less than a second difference between the prior value and the threshold) is greater than a second difference between a prior value associated with the error and the setpoint value; and (Fujii ¶¶ 54-55 discloses calculating a deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” and an “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit” [i.e., a first difference associated with an error], wherein the deviation is equal to or higher than a threshold [i.e., a setpoint value] and the actual lateral position)
Fujii in combination with Shirozono does not expressly disclose:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the first difference being greater than the second difference.
However, Song discloses:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the first difference being greater than the second difference. (Song ¶ 84 discloses “Data that should not be included in clustering, such as driving data with a large error, must be excluded”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the accumulation of Shirozono with determining to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the first difference being greater than the second difference, as disclosed by Song, with reasonable expectation of success, to reduce an error of a finally calculated travel route obtained by calculating an average of a trajectory cluster (Song ¶ 84), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 10, Fujii in combination with Shirozono and Song discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to: determine a third difference between a subsequent value associated with the error and the setpoint value of the parameter is less than a fourth difference between at least one prior value associated with the error and the setpoint value; (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses that when the lateral position of the own vehicle is deviated to an opposite side of a target lane, the “deviation amount ... is increased.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that deviation amount being increased indicates that the latter difference is greater than the prior difference; therefore, the first difference is less than a second difference between the prior value and the threshold. Fujii ¶ 183 discloses that the process for calculating the target lateral state amount in steps S15-S20 repeat; therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first difference and second difference would be a third difference and fourth difference, respectively, upon repeating the process. Also see Fig. 5.) and
determine to accumulate the values associated with the error based on the third difference being less than the fourth difference. (Fujii ¶ 55 discloses that when a deviation is equal to or higher than a threshold [i.e., based on the determined error], calculating a target trajectory function. Calculating the trajectory function requires that values are used for calculation, indicating that the values would have been accumulated.)
Fujii in combination with Shirozono does not expressly disclose:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference.
However, Song discloses:
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference. (Song ¶ 84 discloses “Data that should not be included in clustering, such as driving data with a large error, must be excluded”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the use of data from Fujii with stopping accumulation of values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference as disclosed by Song, with reasonable expectation of success, to reduce an error of a finally calculated travel route obtained (Song ¶ 84), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431), further in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0186403).
Regarding claim 11, Fujii in combination with Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to: determine a change in a sign associated with the error relative to a sign ...; and (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses determining that the deviation amount increases [i.e., a positive sign change associated with the error])
Fujii in combination with Shirozono does not expressly disclose:
[an error] associated with an integral control engine configured to accumulate the values associated with the error
determine to accumulate the values associated with the error based on the change in the sign associated with the error.
However, Zhu discloses:
[an error] associated with an integral control engine configured to accumulate the values associated with the error (Zhu ¶ 24 discloses using a first proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller based on a target directional angle and an actual directional angle of an ADV, which further includes using PID models 124 to “compensate for the ... deviation in target and actual lateral positions of the ADV,” see ¶ 39. Also see ¶ 39 “machine-learning engine 122”)
determine to accumulate the values associated with the error based on the change in the sign associated with the error. (Zhu ¶ 45 discloses that a “Decision module 303 may make such decisions according to a set of rules such as traffic rules, which may be stored in persistent storage device 352”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the processor disclosed by the combination of Fujii and Shirozono with the integral control engine disclosed by Zhu with reasonable expectation of success because PID controller responses are fast and stable (Zhu ¶ 39), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Fujii in combination with Shirozono and Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein:
the change in the sign associated with the error is indicative of a change in direction of the vehicle relative to the setpoint value. (Fujii ¶ 145 discloses determining that the deviation amount increases [i.e., a positive sign change associated with the error])
Regarding claim 13, Fujii in combination with Shirozono and Zhu discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a sign of a value associated with the error matches the sign associated with the integral control engine; and (Zhu ¶ 25 discloses “the proportional coefficient of the first PID controller is increased in response to determining that the turning radius is above [i.e., positive sign] a predetermined threshold”)
determine to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the value associated with the error matching the sign associated with the integral control engine. (Zhu ¶ 26 discloses “a control module calculates a second steering angle based on a target lateral position of an ADV and an actual lateral position of the ADV. The control module calculates the second steering angle using a second PID controller to compensate for a lateral offset of the ADV.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the accumulation of Shirozono, from the combination of Fujii and Shirozono, with determining a sign of a value associated with the error matches the sign associated with the integral control engine; and determining to stop accumulation of the values associated with the error based on the value associated with the error matching the sign associated with the integral control engine, as disclosed by Zhu, with reasonable expectation of success, to correct or reduce error (Zhu in at least ¶ 52), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431) and Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0186403), further in view of Song et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0152807).
Regarding claim 14, Fujii in combination with Shirozono and Zhu does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
reducing, based on the change in the sign associated with the error, an accumulation parameter associated with accumulation of the values associated with the error.
However, Song discloses:
reducing, based on the change in the sign associated with the error, an accumulation parameter associated with accumulation of the values associated with the error. (Song ¶ 93 discloses “The vehicle control system may exclude, from clustering, a travel trajectory along which the change value of the steering angular velocity is greater than the specific threshold value.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that excluding data thereby reduces the accumulation of value associated with error.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the use of data from Fujii, from the combination of Fujii, Shirozono, and Zhu, with stopping accumulation of values associated with the error based on the third difference being greater than the fourth difference as disclosed by Song, with reasonable expectation of success, to reduce an error of a finally calculated travel route obtained (Song ¶ 84), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Fujii in combination with Shirozono and Zhu does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 14, wherein, to reduce the accumulation parameter based on the change in the sign associated with the error, the at least one processor is configured to:
initiate a timer based on the change in the sign associated with the error; and
reduce the accumulation parameter according to the timer.
However, Song discloses:
initiate a timer based on the change in the sign associated with the error; and (Song ¶ 106 discloses “The vehicle control system may identify whether the median offset value belongs to the first range for a specified time duration. The specified time duration may be 10 seconds.”)
reduce the accumulation parameter according to the timer. (Song ¶ 108 discloses “The vehicle control system may proceed to operation 780 when the median offset value is out of the second range (operation 760—NO),” such that data with a large error is excluded, see ¶ 84. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that excluded data thereby reduces the accumulation of data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the predetermined time period disclosed by Fujii, from the combination of Fujii, Shirozono, and Zhu, with the time period being based on a change in the sign associated with the error, as disclosed by Song, with reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of a travel route on which the vehicle is to drive (Song ¶ 112), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claim 16-19, 21-23, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640).
Regarding claim 16, Fujii discloses an apparatus for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle, comprising:
a controller configured to control at least one function of the vehicle; (Fujii ¶ 73 discloses “The CPU [i.e., a processor] executes instructions (programs and routines) stored in the ROM to realize various functions [i.e., a controller],” the ECU 10 comprising the CPU being a control device for executing lane change assist control for a vehicle, see ¶ 77)
at least one memory; and (Fujii ¶ 73)
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured to: receive input data associated with a manual interaction with the vehicle, wherein the manual interaction changes a lookahead path of the vehicle; (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel,” such that the steering amount is “through a manual operation of the steering wheel,” see ¶ 4, such that “the driving support ECU 10 calculates/updates the target control amount (θlca*),” see ¶ 184)
determine, while the manual interaction is active, a supplemental lookahead offset based on the manual interaction; (Fujii ¶ 54 discloses “at the steering determination time point, calculate a deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” and an “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit,” such that “the LCA is started while the driver is performing the steering operation,” see ¶ 195. Also see ¶ 56. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a supplemental lookahead offset includes a deviation from a trajectory.)
apply, while the manual interaction is active, the supplemental lookahead offset to a lookahead [value] at an output of the controller; and (Fujii ¶ 227 “the driving support ECU 10 determines whether or not the actual lateral position at the current time point is positioned at a position deviated/shifted in the lane change direction with respect to the target lateral position” such that “the remaining distance Drest is corrected so as to be made shorter by using the actual lateral speed,” see ¶ 231)
control at least one function of the vehicle based on the output of the controller while the manual interaction is active. (Fujii ¶ 180 discloses “the EPS ECU 20 drives (controls) the steering motor 22 in such a manner that the steering angle follows (becomes equal to) the target steering angle θlca,” such that “the LCA is started while the driver is performing the steering operation,” see ¶ 195. Also see ¶ 184)
While Fujii may not expressly disclose that the deviation value, or supplemental lookahead offset, is applied specifically to a lookahead offset, Fujii does disclose applying the shift/deviation distance amount to a lane-change value with respect to the lane center line CL in which the vehicle is currently traveling, see ¶ 145. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shift/deviation distance of a present time to apply it to a lookahead offset, with reasonable expectation of success, because the vehicle is actively traveling on a path as the lane change control assist continues to be used (see Fujii ¶¶ 56 and 186). As long as the vehicle travels, the path ahead of the vehicle is a lookahead path. Because the vehicle may be at a position deviated/shifted from the center line CL, and the lane change control assist is continually used, the deviation includes a current and a future (i.e., lookahead) offset. Therefore, the lane change control assist, which includes adding the shift/deviation amount (i.e., the supplemental lookahead offset), is applied to both current and future (i.e., lookahead) movement states of the vehicle, which includes deviations from the lane center line (i.e., lookahead offset). Also see ¶ 84. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the supplemental lookahead offset to the lookahead offset, as taught by Fujii, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable the target trajectory function to be calculated/determined suitably in response to the behavior of the own vehicle which is being changed by the steering operation performed by the driver (Fujii ¶ 218), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 17, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to: determine the manual interaction is no longer active; and (Fujii ¶ 192 discloses “the driving support ECU 10 determines that the driver has terminated the steering operation”)
reset, based on the manual interaction no longer being active, the lookahead offset to zero. (Fujii ¶ 112 discloses that the steering angle component is set to zero while the ECU 10 carries out lane trace assist control LTA, which operates “without the driver’s steering operation,” see ¶ 128. Also see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 18, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to gradually reset the lookahead offset to zero over a period of time. (Fujii Fig. 6 depicts regions in which the vehicle is travelling where LTA is on, such that the steering angle component is set to zero while [i.e., gradually over a period of time] the ECU 10 carries out lane trace assist control LTA, see ¶ 112)
Regarding claim 19, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to reset the supplemental lookahead offset to zero over the period of time until an original lookahead offset value is achieved. (Fujii ¶ 192 discloses “The driving support ECU 10 executes the above-mentioned processes every time the predetermined time period elapses [i.e., reset over a period of time],” also see Fig. 5 that depicts that the process repeats until the LCA completion condition is satisfied in S20, which includes “when the lateral position y of the own vehicle reaches the final target lateral position y* [i.e., offset is reset to zero until the original offset value is achieved],” see ¶ 183.)
Regarding claim 21, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to determine the manual interaction with the vehicle based on input associated with a driver interaction with a steering wheel of the vehicle. (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel,” such that the steering amount is “through a manual operation of the steering wheel,” see ¶ 4)
Regarding claim 22, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the controller is configured to control the at least one function of the vehicle based on applying the supplemental lookahead offset to the lookahead offset. (Fujii ¶ 55 discloses that when a deviation is equal to or higher than a threshold [i.e., based on the determined error], calculating a target trajectory function. Calculating the trajectory function requires that values are used for calculation, indicating that the values would have been accumulated.)
Regarding claim 23, Fujii discloses the apparatus of claim 22, wherein:
the controller is further configured to control the at least one function of the vehicle based on a steering request for controlling a direction of the vehicle along a pre-determined path. (Fujii ¶ 142 discloses a driving support ECU 10 that determines a target trajectory function for defining a target trajectory [i.e., a configuration request], such that “The target trajectory is a trajectory along which the own vehicle is to be moved.” Also see ¶ 184 “the driving support ECU 10 can have the own vehicle travel along (according to) the target trajectory”)
Regarding claim 29, Fujii discloses a method for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle, comprising:
receiving input data associated with a manual interaction with the vehicle, wherein the manual interaction changes a lookahead path of the vehicle; (Fujii ¶ 18 discloses “the steering operation determination unit determines whether or not the driver has operated a steering wheel,” such that the steering amount is “through a manual operation of the steering wheel,” see ¶ 4, such that “the driving support ECU 10 calculates/updates the target control amount (θlca*),” see ¶ 184)
determining, while the manual interaction is active, a supplemental lookahead offset based on the manual interaction; and (Fujii ¶ 54 discloses “at the steering determination time point, calculate a deviation between the “target lateral position of the own vehicle obtained by the target trajectory function calculated by the first calculation unit” and an “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit,”” also see ¶ 56.)
applying, while the manual interaction is active, the supplemental lookahead offset to a lookahead offset at an output of a controller configured to control at least one function of the vehicle; and (Fujii ¶ 227 “the driving support ECU 10 determines whether or not the actual lateral position at the current time point is positioned at a position deviated/shifted in the lane change direction with respect to the target lateral position” such that “the remaining distance Drest is corrected so as to be made shorter by using the actual lateral speed,” see ¶ 231)
controlling at least one function of the vehicle based on the output of the controller while the manual interaction is active. (Fujii ¶ 180 discloses “the EPS ECU 20 drives (controls) the steering motor 22 in such a manner that the steering angle follows (becomes equal to) the target steering angle θlca.” Also see ¶ 184)
While Fujii may not expressly disclose that the deviation value, or supplemental lookahead offset, is applied specifically to a lookahead offset, Fujii does disclose applying the shift/deviation distance amount to a lane-change value with respect to the lane center line CL in which the vehicle is currently traveling, see ¶ 145. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shift/deviation distance of a present time to apply it to a lookahead offset, with reasonable expectation of success, because the vehicle is actively traveling on a path as the lane change control assist continues to be used (see Fujii ¶¶ 56 and 186). As long as the vehicle travels, the path ahead of the vehicle is a lookahead path. Because the vehicle may be at a position deviated/shifted from the center line CL, and the lane change control assist is continually used, the deviation includes a current and a future (i.e., lookahead) offset. Therefore, the lane change control assist, which includes adding the shift/deviation amount (i.e., the supplemental lookahead offset), is applied to both current and future (i.e., lookahead) movement states of the vehicle, which includes deviations from the lane center line (i.e., lookahead offset). Also see ¶ 84. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the supplemental lookahead offset to the lookahead offset, as taught by Fujii, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable the target trajectory function to be calculated/determined suitably in response to the behavior of the own vehicle which is being changed by the steering operation performed by the driver (Fujii ¶ 218), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 30, Fujii discloses the method of claim 29, further comprising:
determining the manual interaction is no longer active; and (Fujii ¶ 192 discloses “the driving support ECU 10 determines that the driver has terminated the steering operation”)
resetting, based on the manual interaction no longer being active, the lookahead offset to zero. (Fujii ¶ 112 discloses that the steering angle component is set to zero while the ECU 10 carries out lane trace assist control LTA, which operates “without the driver’s steering operation,” see ¶ 128. Also see Fig. 5)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0297640) in view of Switkes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0155309).
Regarding claim 20, Fujii in combination with Shirozono does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 16, wherein:
the at least one processor is configured to use at least one of a filter and a vehicle model with knowledge of a speed of the vehicle to determine the supplemental lookahead offset.
However, Switkes discloses:
the at least one processor (Switkes ¶ 89) is configured to use at least one of a filter and a vehicle model with knowledge of a speed of the vehicle to determine the supplemental lookahead offset. (Switkes ¶ 154 discloses a “bad data mask 1402” and a “vehicle model module 1406,” wherein the “bad data mask 1402 acts to filter or remove data that is considered “bad” or inaccurate ... while the vehicle is traveling at a very slow rate of speed (e.g., 9 mph or less) [i.e., with knowledge of a speed],” see ¶ 156, such that “mass is important because it is one of the primary determining factors around what trajectories are feasible for the vehicles, see ¶ 148.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the processor of Fujii, from the combination of Fujii and Shirozono, with using at least one of a filter and a model with knowledge of a speed of the vehicle to determine the supplemental lookahead offset, as disclosed by Switkes, with reasonable expectation of success, because “the advantage of applying the FIR filtering is that it removes phase lag from the sensed data and provides a well-defined “wind up” time” (Switkes ¶ 157), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Darayan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0201324) discloses controlling a vehicle using a first computing device to determine first internal data that includes a difference between the vehicle's position and the received trajectory. While operating, the first computing device can determine adjustments to control data to correct the vehicle's position to achieve the received trajectory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662