DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 filed on 06/14/2023 and Amendments filed on 08/21/2025 have been examined.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 15, and 17-20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-14, 16, and 21 are currently pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 stating “… As amended, independent claim 1 recites, in part, the following features controlling driving of the vehicle by performing a minimal risk maneuver based on the selected minimal risk maneuver type. Applicant respectfully asserts that the human mind is not equipped to control driving of a vehicle by performing a minimal risk maneuver… Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 and its corresponding dependent claims are patent eligible, and respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections…” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claim 1 and the corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 101.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 stating “… independent claim 1 explicitly recites stopping-in-safety zone as one of the independent types among the plurality of MRM types and includes it as a selectable maneuver type, which is distinguishable from merely describing that the vehicle may stop when a safety zone exists… [0055] of Yu … does not disclose defining such stopping operation as one independent type among a plurality of MRM types or classifying it as one of selectable maneuver types. Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that Yu fails to disclose the above-recited features of amended independent claim 1…” has been considered and is not persuasive. The Examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim 1, Yu et al. US 20250065919 A1 (“Yu”) discloses in response to the minimal risk maneuver request being generated, selecting a minimal risk maneuver type from among a plurality of minimal risk maneuver types based on the state of the vehicle to obtain a selected minimal risk maneuver type (See at least [0057] of Yu – “… the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC...”), wherein the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises a stopping-in-safety zone type in which the vehicle stops after traveling to a safety zone (See at least [0051] – “… the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop…” and [0055] of Yu – “… the automated driving system 100 may perform another stop type when a safe zone, searched through an external server or a roadside unit (RSU), is available. This may include, for example, a shoulder stop or a parking lane stop, allowing the vehicle to stop on a shoulder or in a parking/stopping zone…”). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Yu discloses the limitations recited in amended claim 1 above.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on pages 8-12 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 stating “… Additionally, amended independent claim 1 recites that searching for the safety zones includes: (i) determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value; or (ii) determining the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value. This subject matter is derived from now-canceled dependent claims 6 and 7… in determining a road merge point as a safety zone, the determination is not based merely on whether a space sufficient for the vehicle to stop exists. Rather, the determination includes quantitative and continuous spatial conditions, namely, whether a distance between the nearest driving lanes of two roads is greater than a preset threshold value and whether such distance condition continues within a predetermined distance range from the road merge point… Ishida and Nakano merely determine whether a space or length sufficient for stopping the vehicle exists, and do not disclose the specific configuration of determining a safety zone by identifying a road merge point and evaluating whether the distance condition between lanes is satisfied and maintained… Applicant respectfully asserts that Yu, Ishida, and Nakano, individually or in any combination with one another, fail to disclose the above recited features of amended independent claim 1… For at least the reasons discussed above, Yu, whether alone or in combination with any other reference cited in the Action (e.g., Ishida, Nakano), fails to disclose, at least, the above- recited features of amended independent claim 1… amended independent claim 14 is allowable for at least the same reasons as those discussed above with regards to claim 1… the remaining claims depend from and add further features to one of the independent claims. It is respectfully submitted that these dependent claims are allowable by reason of depending from an allowable claim…” have been considered and are not persuasive. The Examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of amended claim 1, Ishida et al. US 20220410877 A1 (“Ishida”) teaches wherein searching for the safety zones comprises determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value (See at least [0036]-[0037] – “… the evacuation place setter 17 may be configured to set a free space for an evacuation place when the evacuation place setter 17 can determine that an own vehicle can stop at the free space based on a size of the free space… a given free space existing in a direction of travelling of an own vehicle with a size sufficient for the own vehicle to stop is preferable as a free space. Here, the space large enough for the own vehicle to stop has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction…”, [0065] – “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a median strip zone space… since the striped zone 71 exists ahead… the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3. Hence, by setting the free space S3 for a destination as an evacuation place, and evacuating and stopping the own vehicle 43 at a stop position 43a, the own vehicle 43 can be safely stopped within a road even if evacuation to the road shoulder is difficult…” and Fig. 8 of Ishida – space s3 having a longitudinal width greater than the width of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3 as long as the space has a longitudinal width longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Yu in combination with Ishida teaches at least one of the amended limitations in claims 1 and 14 for determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value argued above. Furthermore, the Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 1 and 14 and their corresponding dependent claims with the art on record under 35 U.S.C. 103 as provided below.
Examiner notes that Yu in combination with Ishida and Nakano et al. US 20230347939 A1 (“Nakano”) fails to teach the alternative option in amended claims 1 and 14 reciting and wherein searching for the safety zones comprises… or determining the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value as [0037] of Ishida teaches a free space large enough for the own vehicle to stop that has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction, and a length in a widthwise direction (i.e., a width) orthogonal to the lane extension direction longer than the own vehicle in a widthwise direction, which does not read on the limitation in claim 1 reciting a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value.
Additionally, Nakano also does not teach a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value as the reference is silent on a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold. Therefore, the Examiner has provided the suggestion to the Applicant below to overcome the art on record.
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the prior art of record: in order to overcome the prior art of record, applicant can amend claims 1 and 14 as follows:
1. “and
wherein searching for the safety zones comprises:
determining the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value”
14. “wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. US 20250065919 A1 (“Yu”) in view of Ishida et al. US 20220410877 A1 (“Ishida”).
For claim 1, Yu discloses a method of operating a vehicle (See at least Abstract of Yu – “The present invention relates to an automated driving system… performing a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) process for controlling the vehicle to respond to an automated driving failure situation…”), the method comprising:
generating a minimal risk maneuver request of the vehicle in response to a determination that there is an abnormality in a state of the vehicle (See at least [0050] of Yu – “… based on the MRM and the MRC with reference to FIG. 3, when a problem occurs with the normal performance of the automated driving, the automated driving system 100 may first request the MRM operation if there is no control given to the driver ...”);
in response to the minimal risk maneuver request being generated, selecting a minimal risk maneuver type from among a plurality of minimal risk maneuver types based on the state of the vehicle to obtain a selected minimal risk maneuver type (See at least [0057] of Yu – “… the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC...”), wherein the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises a stopping-in-safety zone type in which the vehicle stops after traveling to a safety zone (See at least [0051] – “… the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop…” and [0055] of Yu – “… the automated driving system 100 may perform another stop type when a safe zone, searched through an external server or a roadside unit (RSU), is available. This may include, for example, a shoulder stop or a parking lane stop, allowing the vehicle to stop on a shoulder or in a parking/stopping zone…”); and
controlling driving of the vehicle by performing a minimal risk maneuver based on the selected minimal risk maneuver type (See at least [0033] of Yu – “… the automated driving controller 110 may include a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) module for executing MRM and a module for performing normal or emergency stops based on the MRM…”),
wherein selecting the minimal risk maneuver type from among the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises:
searching for safety zones to obtain found safety zones (See at least [0117] of Yu – “… the MRM may enable the automated vehicle to stop at a safe stop zone by sequentially searching for a full-shoulder stop zone as the safe zone for some sections from the expected deviation time point, and if no safe zone is found in the above section, then searching for a half-shoulder stop zone…”);
selecting one safety zone among the found safety zones to obtain a selected one safety zone (See at least [0120] of Yu – “… If a full-shoulder stop is available as the safe zone based on the request, the vehicle may stop by receiving this information from the control server...”); and
selecting the minimal risk maneuver type according to a type of the selected one safety zone (See at least [0120] of Yu – “… If a full-shoulder stop is available as the safe zone based on the request, the vehicle may stop by receiving this information from the control server...”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein searching for the safety zones comprises:
determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value; or
determining the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein searching for the safety zones comprises:
determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value (See at least [0036]-[0037] – “… the evacuation place setter 17 may be configured to set a free space for an evacuation place when the evacuation place setter 17 can determine that an own vehicle can stop at the free space based on a size of the free space… a given free space existing in a direction of travelling of an own vehicle with a size sufficient for the own vehicle to stop is preferable as a free space. Here, the space large enough for the own vehicle to stop has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction…”, [0065] – “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a median strip zone space… since the striped zone 71 exists ahead… the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3. Hence, by setting the free space S3 for a destination as an evacuation place, and evacuating and stopping the own vehicle 43 at a stop position 43a, the own vehicle 43 can be safely stopped within a road even if evacuation to the road shoulder is difficult…” and Fig. 8 of Ishida – space s3 having a longitudinal width greater than the width of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3 as long as the space has a longitudinal width longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction); or
determining the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value. Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a free space with a sufficient size for the vehicle to stop as specified in at least [0037] of Ishida.
For claim 3, Yu discloses wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping- completely-on shoulder type, a stopping-half-on shoulder type (See at least [0056] of Yu – “The shoulder stop may be classified into a full-shoulder stop if the shoulder has a sufficient width (e.g., 2 m), and a half-shoulder stop in other cases”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping-on-road merge point type, and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping-on-road merge point type (See at least [0065] of Ishida – “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a median strip zone space…”), and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type (See at least [0070] of Ishida – “FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a lane reduction space…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of the stopping-in-safety zone type comprising a stopping-on-road merge point type and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve safe evacuation in accordance with a condition of the road on which the own vehicle is traveling as specified in at least [0007] of Ishida.
For claim 12, Yu discloses wherein:
the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types further comprises an emergency-stopping type in which the vehicle stops prior to traveling to the safety zone (See at least [0051] of Yu – “The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop”); and
the emergency-stopping type comprises a straight-stopping type (See at least [0051] of Yu – “The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop…”) and an in-lane stopping type (See at least [0051] of Yu – “The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into … in-lane stop…”).
For claim 14, Yu discloses a vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 of Yu – vehicle 10), comprising:
a sensor configured to detect state information of components of the vehicle and surrounding environment information of the vehicle (See at least [0027] – “Specifically, the HVI module 130 may detect the driver's status through a vision sensor or various other sensors while simultaneously detecting and analyzing the driving mode or external driving environment of the vehicle 10. It can assess operational loads or abnormal situations and inform the driver through various interfaces … The HVI module 130 can also indicate whether the current driving mode is automated or manual and display any changes in the driving mode...” and [0031] of Yu – “…the sensor unit 150 may include sensors … enabling it to internally determine the current driving mode of the vehicle 10”);
a processor configured to:
monitor a state of the vehicle based on information from the sensor (See at least [0027] of Yu – “Specifically, the HVI module 130 may detect the driver's status through a vision sensor or various other sensors while simultaneously detecting and analyzing the driving mode or external driving environment of the vehicle 10. It can assess operational loads or abnormal situations and inform the driver through various interfaces … The HVI module 130 can also indicate whether the current driving mode is automated or manual and display any changes in the driving mode...”) and to control autonomous driving of the vehicle (See at least [0032] of Yu – “The automated driving controller 110 generates and outputs control instructions for operating the automated vehicle 10. It is classified into various modules based on the processor's function to control behavior during automated driving”);
generate a minimal risk maneuver request of the vehicle in response to a determination that there is an abnormality in the state of the vehicle (See at least [0050] of Yu – “… based on the MRM and the MRC with reference to FIG. 3, when a problem occurs with the normal performance of the automated driving, the automated driving system 100 may first request the MRM operation if there is no control given to the driver ...”);
select a minimal risk maneuver type from among a plurality of minimal risk maneuver types based on the state of the vehicle in response to generation of the minimal risk maneuver request to obtain a selected minimal risk maneuver type (See at least [0057] of Yu – “… the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC...”), wherein the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises a stopping-in-safety zone type in which the vehicle is configured to stop after traveling to a safety zone (See at least [0051] – “… the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop…” and [0055] of Yu – “… the automated driving system 100 may perform another stop type when a safe zone, searched through an external server or a roadside unit (RSU), is available. This may include, for example, a shoulder stop or a parking lane stop, allowing the vehicle to stop on a shoulder or in a parking/stopping zone…”); and
control driving of the vehicle by performing a minimal risk maneuver according to the selected minimal risk maneuver type (See at least [0033] of Yu – “… the automated driving controller 110 may include a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) module for executing MRM and a module for performing normal or emergency stops based on the MRM…”),
wherein, in order to select the minimal risk maneuver type from among the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types, the processor is further configured to:
search for safety zones to obtain found safety zones (See at least [0117] of Yu – “… the MRM may enable the automated vehicle to stop at a safe stop zone by sequentially searching for a full-shoulder stop zone as the safe zone for some sections from the expected deviation time point, and if no safe zone is found in the above section, then searching for a half-shoulder stop zone…”);
select one safety zone from among the found safety zones to obtain a selected one safety zone (See at least [0120] of Yu – “… If a full-shoulder stop is available as the safe zone based on the request, the vehicle may stop by receiving this information from the control server...”); and
select the minimal risk maneuver type according to a type of the selected one safety zone (See at least [0120] of Yu – “… If a full-shoulder stop is available as the safe zone based on the request, the vehicle may stop by receiving this information from the control server...”); and
a controller configured to control an operation of the vehicle according to a control of the processor (See at least [0040] of Yu – “… The domain control unit (DCU) 160 may be configured to control the sensors, actuators, and other components required for driving the vehicle… may integrate and control the modules necessary for automated driving…”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value; or
determine the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value (See at least [0036]-[0037] – “… the evacuation place setter 17 may be configured to set a free space for an evacuation place when the evacuation place setter 17 can determine that an own vehicle can stop at the free space based on a size of the free space… a given free space existing in a direction of travelling of an own vehicle with a size sufficient for the own vehicle to stop is preferable as a free space. Here, the space large enough for the own vehicle to stop has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction…”, [0065] – “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a median strip zone space… since the striped zone 71 exists ahead… the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3. Hence, by setting the free space S3 for a destination as an evacuation place, and evacuating and stopping the own vehicle 43 at a stop position 43a, the own vehicle 43 can be safely stopped within a road even if evacuation to the road shoulder is difficult…” and Fig. 8 of Ishida – space s3 having a longitudinal width greater than the width of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the striped zone 71 can be set for an evacuation place as a free space S3 as long as the space has a longitudinal width longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction); or
determine the road merge point as one of the safety zones based on the distance between the nearest driving lanes of the two roads before the road merge point being greater than the preset second threshold value and a distance from the road merge point to a location where the distance is greater than the preset second threshold value being less than or equal to a preset third threshold value. Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of determining a road merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance between nearest driving lanes of two roads before the road merge point being greater than a preset second threshold value as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a free space with a sufficient size for the vehicle to stop as specified in at least [0037] of Ishida.
For claim 16, Yu discloses wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping- completely-on shoulder type, a stopping-half-on shoulder type See at least [0056] of Yu – “The shoulder stop may be classified into a full-shoulder stop if the shoulder has a sufficient width (e.g., 2 m), and a half-shoulder stop in other cases”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping-on-road merge point type, and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the stopping-in-safety zone type comprises a stopping-on-road merge point type (See at least [0065] of Ishida – “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a median strip zone space…”), and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type (See at least [0070] of Ishida – “FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a situation in which an own vehicle is evacuated to a lane reduction space…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of the stopping-in-safety zone type comprising a stopping-on-road merge point type and a stopping-on-highway entrance merge point type as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve safe evacuation in accordance with a condition of the road on which the own vehicle is traveling as specified in at least [0007] of Ishida.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ishida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sim US 20190135291 A1 (“Sim”).
For claim 5, Yu discloses wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a shoulder as one of the safety zones based on a width of the shoulder (See at least [0056] of Yu – “The shoulder stop may be classified into a full-shoulder stop if the shoulder has a sufficient width (e.g., 2 m), and a half-shoulder stop in other cases”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a shoulder as one of the safety zones based on a width of the shoulder being greater than a preset first threshold value.
However, Sim, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a shoulder as one of the safety zones based on a width of the shoulder being greater than a preset first threshold value (See at least [0043]-[0045] of Sim – “the system may calculate a width of a shoulder lane, and may determine whether the shoulder lane has a sufficiently large width (e.g., a minimum width of 2.8 meters) in which the host vehicle can stop (S330)… If it is determined that the shoulder lane width is equal to or longer than 2.8 meters (S330)… the system may control the host vehicle to move toward the stop point calculated in step S350, and may control the host vehicle to stop at the calculated stop point…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle including a shoulder in the road that has a sufficient width, while Sim teaches a system for a vehicle that determines whether a shoulder on the road has a width equal to or longer than a specified amount for stopping the vehicle in the area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a shoulder as one of the safety zones based on a width of the shoulder being greater than a preset first threshold value as taught by Sim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to stop the vehicle at the shoulder as specified in at least [0045] of Sim.
Claims 8-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ishida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motoyama US 20220340130 A1 (“Motoyama”).
For claim 8, Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value.
However, Motoyama, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value (See at least [0247] – “the planning unit 134 specifies, as an evacuation space, a region Z51a surrounded by a dotted line in the drawing…” and Fig. 15 of Motoyama – Z51 includes a width of the shoulder and a width of a lane). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Motoyama teaches a system that identifies an evacuation space for a vehicle based on a width of a shoulder and a width of an adjacent lane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value as taught by Motoyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to evacuate a vehicle to the road shoulder side of a travelling lane as specified in at least [0247] of Motoyama.
Furthermore, Yu also fails to specifically disclose wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to a location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to a location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value (See at least [0036]-[0037] – “… the evacuation place setter 17 may be configured to set a free space for an evacuation place when the evacuation place setter 17 can determine that an own vehicle can stop at the free space based on a size of the free space… a given free space existing in a direction of travelling of an own vehicle with a size sufficient for the own vehicle to stop is preferable as a free space. Here, the space large enough for the own vehicle to stop has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction, and a length in a widthwise direction (i.e., a width) orthogonal to the lane extension direction…” and Fig. 10 of Ishida – space s6 having a specified length sufficient for the vehicle to evacuate to). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to the location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a free space with a sufficient size for the vehicle to stop as specified in at least [0037] of Ishida.
For claim 9, Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises searching for the safety zones only within a region of interest of the vehicle.
However, Motoyama, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein searching for the safety zones further comprises searching for the safety zones only within a region of interest of the vehicle (See at least [0242] of Motoyama – “the planning unit 134 searches for evacuation space candidates for the own vehicle CS in the available-for-evacuation region”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Motoyama teaches a system that identifies an evacuation space for a vehicle within a region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises searching for the safety zones only within a region of interest of the vehicle as taught by Motoyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to specify, as an evacuation space, a region most suitable for evacuation among the evacuation space candidates found in a search as specified in at least [0242] of Motoyama.
For claim 21, Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value.
However, Motoyama, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value (See at least [0247] – “the planning unit 134 specifies, as an evacuation space, a region Z51a surrounded by a dotted line in the drawing…” and Fig. 15 of Motoyama – Z51 includes a width of the shoulder and a width of a lane). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Motoyama teaches a system that identifies an evacuation space for a vehicle based on a width of a shoulder and a width of an adjacent lane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a sum of widths of a shoulder and an entry lane being greater than a preset fourth threshold value as taught by Motoyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to evacuate a vehicle to the road shoulder side of a travelling lane as specified in at least [0247] of Motoyama.
Furthermore, Yu also fails to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to a location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value.
However, Ishida, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to a location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value (See at least [0036]-[0037] – “… the evacuation place setter 17 may be configured to set a free space for an evacuation place when the evacuation place setter 17 can determine that an own vehicle can stop at the free space based on a size of the free space… a given free space existing in a direction of travelling of an own vehicle with a size sufficient for the own vehicle to stop is preferable as a free space. Here, the space large enough for the own vehicle to stop has a length in a lane extension direction (i.e., a longitudinal width) longer than an own vehicle in a longitudinal direction, and a length in a widthwise direction (i.e., a width) orthogonal to the lane extension direction…” and Fig. 10 of Ishida – space s6 having a specified length sufficient for the vehicle to evacuate to). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Ishida teaches an evacuation assistance system for a vehicle that identifies an on-road merge point area and a highway entrance merge point area as areas evacuation areas suitable for a vehicle to evacuate to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of searching for the safety zones comprises determining a highway entrance merge point as one of the safety zones based on a distance from a final merge point, where the entry lane merges with a driving lane and thus ends, to the location where the sum is greater than the preset fourth threshold value is less than or equal to a preset fifth threshold value as taught by Ishida, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a free space with a sufficient size for the vehicle to stop as specified in at least [0037] of Ishida.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ishida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niino et al. US 20180029604 A1 (“Niino”).
For claim 10, Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein selecting the one safety zone among the found safety zones comprises selecting a safety zone having a closest distance among the found safety zones.
However, Niino, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein selecting the one safety zone among the found safety zones comprises selecting a safety zone having a closest distance among the found safety zones (See at least [0069] of Niino – “…the evacuation control unit 18 sets an evacuation area (such as an evacuation area A shown in FIG. 2) that is the closest to the own vehicle, among evacuation areas…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Niino teaches an evacuation control system for a vehicle that selects the closest evacuation area for a vehicle from candidate evacuation areas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of selecting the one safety zone among the found safety zones comprises selecting a safety zone having a closest distance among the found safety zones as taught by Niino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to promptly ensure the safety of the own vehicle and driver as specified in at least [0069] of Niino.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ishida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maus et al. US 20210294336 A1 (“Maus”).
For claim 11, Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein selecting the one safety zone among the found safety zones comprises selecting a safety zone having a highest priority among the found safety zones based on a priority set according to a type of the safety zone.
However, Maus, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein selecting the one safety zone among the found safety zones comprises selecting a safety zone having a highest priority among the found safety zones based on a priority set according to a type of the safety zone (See at least [0037]-[0045] of Maus – “…the computer 32 … ranks the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 by expected risk score 46… then selects the minimal risk maneuver 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 ranked best for the expected risk score 46 from the minimal risk maneuvers 36, 38, 40, 42, 44 for which the respective distances 48 are below the distance limit… The computer 32 can score controllability ratings, exposure ratings, and severity ratings for maneuvering along each type of road 80, 82… the first minimal risk maneuver 36 can have ratings of … for an expected risk score 46 of B, the second minimal risk maneuver 38 can have ratings … for an expected risk score 46 of C, the third minimal risk maneuver 40 can have ratings … for an expected risk score 46 of B…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Maus teaches a system for selecting a minimal risk maneuver and stopping area for a vehicle based on ranked minimal risk maneuvers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of selecting a safety zone having a highest priority among the found safety zones based on a priority set according to a type of the safety zone as taught by Maus, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select the minimal risk maneuver ranked best out of the plurality of minimal risk maneuvers considered as specified in at least [0037] of Maus.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Ishida, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Song Moon Hyung KR 20220010697 A (“Song Moon Hyung”).
For claim 13, Yu discloses wherein selecting the one among the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises:
selecting the stopping-in-safety zone type based on the vehicle being capable of performing a shoulder detection (See at least [0055] of Yu – “The automated driving system 100 may perform another stop type when a safe zone, searched through an external server or a roadside unit (RSU), is available. This may include, for example, a shoulder stop or a parking lane stop, allowing the vehicle to stop on a shoulder or in a parking/stopping zone...”);
selecting the in-lane stopping type based on the vehicle being capable of performing the braking control and the lateral control but not the lane detection and the shoulder detection (See at least [0053] of Yu – “An in-lane stop may indicate that braking is performed to maintain the lane where the vehicle 10 is currently driving, bringing the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require acceleration or lane change control, but will perform lateral control to maintain the lane and deceleration control for braking”); and
selecting the straight-stopping type based on the vehicle being capable of performing the braking control but not the lateral control, the lane detection, and the shoulder detection (See at least [0052] of Yu – “A straight stop may indicate, for example, that in the most urgent situation, braking is performed in the direction the vehicle 10 is currently driving to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require lateral control, acceleration control, or lane change control, but will perform deceleration control for braking…”).
Yu fails to specifically disclose wherein selecting the one among the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises:
selecting the stopping-in-safety zone type based on the vehicle being capable of performing a braking control, a lateral control, a lane detection.
However, Song Moon Hyung, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein selecting the one among the plurality of minimal risk maneuver types comprises:
selecting the stopping-in-safety zone type based on the vehicle being capable of performing a braking control, a lateral control, a lane detection (See at least page 11 of Song Moon Hyung – “Type 3 shoulder stop means that the vehicle is moved to a safer area (shoulder) out of the lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling, and braking is performed to stop the vehicle. In road shoulder stopping, acceleration control to get out of the current driving lane, lane change control to move to a safe area, lateral control to keep lane movement and lane, and deceleration for braking Control (Deceleration) is performed…”). Thus, Yu discloses an automated driving system for a vehicle that is able to detect a failure during automated driving and generate minimal risk maneuver requests to allow the vehicle to move to a safety zone and minimize the risk for the vehicle, while Song Moon Hyung teaches a system that provides safety zones where a vehicle may be stopped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and vehicle as disclosed in Yu to include the feature of selecting the stopping-in-safety zone type based on the vehicle being capable of performing a braking control, a lateral control, a lane detection as taught by Song Moon Hyung, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to move the vehicle to a safer area out of the lane in which the vehicle currently travels as specified in at least page 11 of Song Moon Hyung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668