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 .
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 06/15/2026.
Claims 1-31 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 14-15 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-13, 16-26 and 29-31 and are currently rejected.
Claims 1-3, 7, 24-26, 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 Kim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0153265), further in view of Shirozono et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170431).
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 Kim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0153265) and 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 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) in view of Edara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0299702).
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 Edara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0299702), further in view of Switkes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0155309).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments presented in the Applicant Remarks, see page 11, primarily appear to be directed to the amended language. Applicant argues that the amendments provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer and other technology and is therefore patent eligible subject matter.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. First, In Berkheimer v. HP INC., 881 F. 3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the federal circuit held that improvements are only considered “to the extent they are captured in the claims.” Berkheimer at 1369. As written, the claims do not expressly teach or require the improvement of the technological environment. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Even so, the claims merely encompass steps to be performed, and the additional elements including the “controller,” “memory,” and “processor” are recited at a high level as a means to “apply” the steps to a generic computing environment. Therefore, the
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 Kim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0153265) and Edara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0299702).
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, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error;
determine, based on the increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error by the control engine; and
output, based on the determination, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine is configured to steer the vehicle based on the request.
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 limitations 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, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error;
determine, based on the increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error by the control engine; and
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 output, based on the determination, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine is configured to steer the vehicle based on the request.
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) 2-13 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 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 14-15, and 27-28 are dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claims 4-5, 14-15, and 27-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 Kim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0153265), further 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; (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, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error;
determine, based on the increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error by the control engine; and
output, based on the determination to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine is configured to steer the vehicle based on the request.
However, Kim discloses:
wherein the control engine (Kim in at least ¶ 13 “autonomous controller”) is configured to accumulate values associated with the error; (Kim ¶ 15 discloses “calculating vehicle movement information in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction using the position information change rate of the vehicle and accumulating and storing the vehicle movement information in the initial position to calculate the lateral departure degree [i.e., error] of the vehicle on local coordinates”)
determine, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error; (Kim ¶ 77 discloses “accumulating and storing the movement information of the vehicle in the initial position to localize the vehicle on the local coordinates” wherein the lateral departure degree is a “lateral error value,” such that “The longer the distance where the vehicle travels depending on only navigation driving in the state there is no reference value such as the lane image, the more the accumulated lateral error may increase,” see ¶ 78, wherein the vehicle is operated under manual driving, see at least ¶ 5.)
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 accumulating values associated with an error and determining, during manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of error, as disclosed by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, because lateral departure degree may be sharply increased within a short moment, and such modification may prevent a collision with another vehicle which is traveling on an adjacent line (Kim ¶ 52), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Shirozono discloses:
output, based on the determination to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine is configured to steer the vehicle based on the request. (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses preventing [i.e., mitigating] “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),” and wherein 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, of the combination of Fujii and Kim, with outputting, based on the determination to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine is configured to steer the vehicle based on the request, 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).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii in combination with Kim and 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 Kim and 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 6, Fujii in combination with Kim and Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the increase in the magnitude of 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, of the combination of Fujii and Kim, 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 Kim and Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one processor (Fujii ¶ 73) is configured to:
determine, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, a decrease in the magnitude of the error; and (Fujii ¶ 112 discloses that of Expression (1), “The second term on the right-hand side is a steering angle component that acts in the feed-back manner so that the yaw angle θy is decreased (so that the difference between the direction of the own vehicle and the lane center line CL is decreased) [i.e., decrease in the magnitude of the error]”)
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
determine, based on the decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to allow the control engine to accumulate the values associated with the error.
However, Kim discloses:
determine, based on the decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to allow the control engine to accumulate the values associated with the error. (Kim ¶ 53 discloses that “The lane lost interval setting device 310 may be configured to set a distance meeting when a lateral error value E.sub.y_Cam accumulated while the vehicle travels the lane lost section is less than or equal to a reference lateral error (Lat_Thd) value set based on the center of the line and when a heading error value E.sub.h_Cam indicating a degree to which the vehicle is misaligned from the line is less than or equal to a predetermined reference heading error (Head_Thd) value.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the determining of the magnitude of error of Fujii with determining to allow the control engine to accumulate the values associated with the error based on the decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, with reasonable expectation of success, to connect an old line with a new line as a driving route and to minimize the degree of lateral departure (Kim ¶ 8) and minimize the lateral error value (Kim ¶ 77), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 8, Fujii in combination with Kim and Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
determine, after the decrease in the magnitude of the error, a subsequent increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle; and (Kim Fig. 9 depicts that the system continues to re-evaluate the error such that the, and subsequently determining that the line is lost)
determine, based on the subsequent increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error by the control engine. (Kim ¶ 77 discloses “accumulating and storing the movement information of the vehicle in the initial position to localize the vehicle on the local coordinates” wherein the lateral departure degree is a “lateral error value,” such that “The longer the distance where the vehicle travels depending on only navigation driving in the state there is no reference value such as the lane image, the more the accumulated lateral error may increase,” see ¶ 78, wherein the vehicle is operated under manual driving, see at least ¶ 5.)
Regarding claim 9, Fujii in combination with Kim and Shirozono discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
determine to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error by the control engine based on the increase in the magnitude of the error satisfying a threshold condition. (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. Also see Fujii ¶¶ 54-55 disclosing calculating an “actual lateral position of the own vehicle detected by the lane recognition unit”, wherein the deviation is equal to or higher than a threshold [i.e., a setpoint value] and the actual lateral position).
Regarding claim 10, Fujii in combination with Kim and Shirozono and Song discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein:
determine, after the increase in the magnitude of the error, a subsequent decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle; and (Kim ¶ 36 discloses a vehicle positioning module 100 to calculate a lateral departure degree form a center of a virtual line after the lane is lost [i.e., an increase in magnitude of the error], and using a lateral control module 200 to perform lateral autonomous control of the vehicle to minimize the lateral departure degree [i.e., a subsequent decrease] to cause the vehicle to follow the driving route on the virtual line.)
determine, based on the subsequent decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to allow the control engine to accumulate the values associated with the error. (Kim ¶ 38 discloses “a vehicle positioning device 130 configured to calculate vehicle movement information in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction using the position information change rate of the vehicle and accumulate and store the vehicle movement information in the initial position to calculate the lateral departure degree of the vehicle on local coordinates”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the determining of the magnitude of error of Fujii with determining, after the increase in the magnitude of the error, a subsequent decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, and determining, based on the subsequent decrease in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, to allow the control engine to accumulate the values associated with the error, as disclosed by Kim, with reasonable expectation of success, to proactively determine whether autonomous control of lateral motion is required and set the driving route on the lane lost section (Kim ¶ 79), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 24, Fujii in combination with Kim and 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; (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, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error determining, based on the increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, by the control engine; and
outputting, based on the determination to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine steers the vehicle based on the request.
However, Kim discloses:
wherein a control engine (Kim in at least ¶ 13 “autonomous controller”) is configured to accumulate values associated with the error; (Kim ¶ 15 discloses “calculating vehicle movement information in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction using the position information change rate of the vehicle and accumulating and storing the vehicle movement information in the initial position to calculate the lateral departure degree [i.e., error] of the vehicle on local coordinates”)
determining, during the manual interaction with the vehicle, an increase in a magnitude of the error determining, based on the increase in the magnitude of the error during the manual interaction with the vehicle, by the control engine; and (Kim ¶ 77 discloses “accumulating and storing the movement information of the vehicle in the initial position to localize the vehicle on the local coordinates” wherein the lateral departure degree is a “lateral error value,” such that “The longer the distance where the vehicle travels depending on only navigation driving in the state there is no reference value such as the lane image, the more the accumulated lateral error may increase,” see ¶ 78, wherein the vehicle is operated under manual driving, see at least ¶ 5.)
Shirozono discloses:
outputting, based on the determination to mitigate the accumulation of the values associated with the error, a request to the control engine, wherein the control engine steers the vehicle based on the request. (Shirozono ¶ 101 discloses preventing [i.e., mitigating] “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),” and wherein 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 Kim and 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 Kim and 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 31, Fujii in combination with Kim and 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 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 Kim (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0153265) and 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 Kim 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 Kim and 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 Kim and 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 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) in view of Edara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0299702).
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.)
combine, while the manual interaction is active and at an output of the controller, the supplemental lookahead offset with a lookahead offset to generate a request; (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)
output the request, wherein the controller is configured to control steering of the vehicle based on the request while the manual interaction is active; and (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)
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
reduce, after the manual interaction is no longer active, the supplemental lookahead offset.
However, Edara discloses:
reduce, after the manual interaction is no longer active, the supplemental lookahead offset. (Edara ¶ 30 discloses that “if a manually-operated machine deviates from an authorized course of operation (i.e., path, speed, direction, etc.) by more than a threshold acceptable level, the machine may be switched to an autonomous mode of operation ... until the machine is restored to its authorized course of operation [i.e., reducing the supplemental lookahead offset]”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the manual interaction of Fujii with the manual interaction being no longer active, and after the manual interaction is no longer active, reducing the supplemental lookahead offset, as disclosed by Edara, with reasonable expectation of success, as it enables users to balance the need for maintaining precise machine position information, without unduly burdening the machine's processing resources by unnecessarily using more computationally-intensive positioning techniques (Edara ¶ 73), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 17, Fujii in combination with Edara 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 in combination with Edara 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 in combination with Edara 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 in combination with Edara 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 in combination with Edara 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 in combination with Edara 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.)
combining, while the manual interaction is active and at an output of a controller, the supplemental lookahead offset with a lookahead offset to generate a request; (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)
outputting the request, wherein the controller is configured to control steering of the vehicle based on the request while the manual interaction is active; and (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)
Fujii does not expressly disclose:
reducing, after the manual interaction is no longer active, the supplemental lookahead offset.
However, Edara discloses:
reducing, after the manual interaction is no longer active, the supplemental lookahead offset. (Edara ¶ 30 discloses that “if a manually-operated machine deviates from an authorized course of operation (i.e., path, speed, direction, etc.) by more than a threshold acceptable level, the machine may be switched to an autonomous mode of operation ... until the machine is restored to its authorized course of operation [i.e., reducing the supplemental lookahead offset]”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the manual interaction of Fujii with the manual interaction being no longer active, and after the manual interaction is no longer active, reducing the supplemental lookahead offset, as disclosed by Edara, with reasonable expectation of success, as it enables users to balance the need for maintaining precise machine position information, without unduly burdening the machine's processing resources by unnecessarily using more computationally-intensive positioning techniques (Edara ¶ 73), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 30, Fujii in combination with Edara 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”)
reducing, based on the manual interaction no longer being active, the supplemental lookahead offset. (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 Edara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0299702), further in view of Switkes et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0155309).
Regarding claim 20, Fujii in combination with Edara 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 Edara, 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights