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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 07/22/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 8 and 18 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Kono et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0306074) in further view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0182048) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0017736).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 11
Payne discloses “An autonomous driving mode control apparatus comprising: a sensor unit configured to obtain a battery state of a vehicle, driving situation information of the vehicle, or state information of a driver;” (See Payne [0025] disclosing the battery management system (114) and [0032] disclosing sensors such as a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and/or any other sensor, configured to detect the heading and speed of the vehicle.).
Payne discloses “a communication unit configured to receive situation information of the vehicle, an origin or a destination of the vehicle, or external environment information of the vehicle from an external server or an external device;” (See Payne [0042] disclosing a CPU module which may predict a route a vehicle may take, the CPU module in communication with the memory, see [0024] and Fig. 1, Chars. 108 & 106. The known route retrieved from the memory may comprise a beginning and an end, see [0059] and Fig. 2.).
Payne discloses “comparing an expected state of charge (SOC) value of a battery at the destination with a predetermined SOC value,” (See Payne [0049] disclosing when the vehicle traverses a known route, the CPU module may determine, for each of the segments of the known route, the optimal amount of charge to be used for the segments, including determining that the SOC remaining after the segment should be greater or lower than currently scheduled. That is, comparing the SOC at the destination (post final segment) to a predetermined (optimal) SOC.).
Payne discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except “and a controller communicatively connected to the sensor unit and the communication unit and configured to control travel of the vehicle by setting a driving route based on the origin and the destination,”, “and determining whether to activate a high-level driving mode based on whether a dangerous situation occurs, a result of the comparing, and a safety level of the driving route,”, “wherein the high-level driving mode is an autonomous driving mode in which a control authority for driving of the vehicle is transferred from a driver to an autonomous driving control system,”, & “and wherein the expected SOC value is determined based on power consumption corresponding to autonomous driving modes assigned to respective road sections included in the driving route.”.
Kono discloses “and a controller communicatively connected to the sensor unit and the communication unit and configured to control travel of the vehicle by setting a driving route based on the origin and the destination,” (See Kono Fig. 1, Chars. 10, 60, & 80, and [0038] disclosing a control device communicatively coupled to a driver assistance ECU which receives data from vehicle sensors and a communication unit and [0055] disclosing the navigation system may create a driving route from a point of departure to a destination.).
Payne and Kono are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Kono to include setting a driving route based on an origin and a destination. Doing so provides structure for optimizing a SOC of a vehicle by determining a driving route, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides a quantitative prediction of vehicle energy usage for optimizing the SOC of the vehicle, see Kono [0005]-[0007].
Hu discloses “and determining whether to activate a high-level driving mode based on whether a dangerous situation occurs, a result of the comparing, and a safety level of the driving route,” (i.e. dangerous situation corresponds to weather in the surrounding environment see [0015] of instant application). (See Hu [0060] disclosing environment information, which may correspond to weather, and the correspondence relationship between the preset environment information and the non-driving consumers, which may correspond to lighting necessitated to drive to the destination, may be determined based on the target driving mode, and [0054] disclosing determining if an electric quantity of a low-voltage battery is sufficient in comparison to a threshold for enabling a target driving mode.).
Hu discloses “wherein the high-level driving mode is an autonomous driving mode in which a control authority for driving of the vehicle is transferred from a driver to an autonomous driving control system,” (See Hu Fig. 1, Chars. S11-S12 and [0024] disclosing determining if an electric quantity of a low-voltage battery is sufficient for enabling an automatic driving mode.).
Payne and Hu are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Hu to include enabling or disabling an automated vehicle mode corresponding to a higher power consumption based on an electric quantity comparison, a dangerous situation and a risk profile of a driving route. Doing so provides structure for optimizing a SOC of a vehicle by considering variables corresponding to a driving route, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides a improvement in the driving safety of the vehicle, see Hu [0024].
Kume discloses “and wherein the expected SOC value is determined based on power consumption corresponding to autonomous driving modes assigned to respective road sections included in the driving route.” (See Kume Claim 1 and [0136] disclosing determining a residual amount of energy (SOC) stored in a battery for driving and a threshold corresponding to a predetermined amount of residual energy for continuing the trip, and adjusting the threshold based on a power consumption of the battery for operating in autonomous driving modes in specific road sections.).
Payne, Kono, Hu and Kume are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Kume to include evaluating an automated driving level of a vehicle with a state of charge value based on a road section. Doing so provides mitigation of a low SOC of a vehicle relative to a predicted demand, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so is advantageous since an operation rate of the vehicle components can be reduced, thus the power consumption can be reduced, see Kume [0135].
Regarding claim 3 and similarly with respect to claim 13
Payne discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 1, further including: controlling the travel of the vehicle by activating the high-level driving mode in response that the expected SOC value of the battery at the destination is equal to or greater than the predetermined SOC;” (See Payne [0049] disclosing the CPU module may instruct the battery to produce more energy and/or the engine to produce less energy, if the CPU module determines that the SOC remaining after the segment should be less than currently scheduled.).
Payne discloses all the limitations of claim 3 except “and controlling the travel of the vehicle by downgrading an autonomous driving level in response that the safety level of the driving route is greater than a predetermined safety level.”.
Kume discloses “and controlling the travel of the vehicle by downgrading an autonomous driving level in response that the safety level of the driving route is greater than a predetermined safety level.” (See Kume Fig. 6, Char. S205 and [0128] disclosing determining when to terminate an automated driving mode when a vehicle power level is below a threshold and Kume [0135] disclosing deactivating the automated driving mode.).
Payne, Kono, Hu and Kume are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Kume to include downgrading an automated driving level of a vehicle when a safety level of a driving route, which may correspond to the vehicle SOC comparison, is greater than a threshold. Doing so provides mitigation of a low SOC of a vehicle relative to a predicted demand, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so is advantageous since an operation rate of the vehicle components can be reduced, thus the power consumption can be reduced, see Kume [0135].
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Kono et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0306074) in further view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0182048) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0017736) in even further view of Michaelis et. al. (E.P. Publication No. 3,532,339).
Regarding claim 2 and similarly with respect to claim 12
Payne modified in view of Kono, and Hu discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the controlling of the travel of the vehicle further includes: warning the dangerous situation to the driver in response that the dangerous situation occurs while the vehicle travels and transmitting an inquiry about whether to activate the high-level driving mode to the driver;”, “and controlling the travel of the vehicle by activating the high-level driving mode upon receiving acceptance of the activation for the high-level driving mode from the driver.”.
Michaelis discloses “wherein the controlling of the travel of the vehicle further includes: warning the dangerous situation to the driver in response that the dangerous situation occurs while the vehicle travels and transmitting an inquiry about whether to activate the high-level driving mode to the driver;” (See Michaelis [0018]-[0019] (B1 publication [0026]-[0027]) disclosing sending an indication to a driver that the vehicle may not be able to reach the original destination at the current power demand, and offering a closer charging station as an alternative or a reduction in power usage.).
Michaelis discloses “and controlling the travel of the vehicle by activating the high-level driving mode upon receiving acceptance of the activation for the high-level driving mode from the driver.” (See Michaelis [0018]-[0019] (B1 publication [0026]-[0027]) disclosing a driver selecting an alternative charging station as a destination, so a power reduction of the vehicle is not carried out (i.e. accepting the activation of a higher-level driving mode).).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume, and Michaelis are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Michaelis to include setting a driving mode corresponding to an energy consumption of the vehicle based a driver response to a detected danger. Doing so provides mitigation of a low SOC of a vehicle relative to a predicted demand, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously avoids an unnecessary power limitation of vehicle components on account of a low state of charge of an energy store in an electrically driven motor vehicle, see Michaelis [0011].
Regarding claim 5 and similarly with respect to claim 15
Payne modified in view of Kono, and Hu discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “further including: adding a charging station in the driving route as a stopover.”.
Michaelis discloses “further including: adding a charging station in the driving route as a stopover.” (See Michaelis [0018] (B1 publication [0026]) disclosing adding an alternative charging station as a stop.).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume and Michaelis are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Michaelis to include setting a charging station as a stop for a vehicle. Doing so provides mitigation of a low SOC of a vehicle relative to a predicted demand, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously avoids an unnecessary power limitation of vehicle components on account of a low state of charge of an energy store in an electrically driven motor vehicle, see Michaelis [0011].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Kono et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0306074) in further view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0182048) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0017736) in even further view of Oba (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0034362).
Regarding claim 4 and similarly with respect to claim 14
Payne modified in view of Kono and Hu discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the safety level of the driving route is determined based on a number of vehicles passing a forward road in the driving route, a curvature of the forward road in the driving route, and a visibility range.”.
Oba discloses “wherein the safety level of the driving route is determined based on a number of vehicles passing a forward road in the driving route, a curvature of the forward road in the driving route, and a visibility range.” (See Oba [0457] disclosing evaluating a road section where there is heavy traffic, and in a road section where the driver is traveling and there are many curves with poor visibility is approaching the road section where the driver is traveling, for determining a strategy for handling, and re-examination of a travel plan to mitigate risk, see Oba [0454]-[0455].).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume, and Oba are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Oba to include determining the safety level or a risk assessment of a driving route/travel plan according to the claimed limitation. Doing so provides mitigation unnecessary environmental risks incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously avoids risk of secondary damage such as rear-end collision by the following vehicle or induction of traffic congestion and unsafe conditions, see Oba [0454].
Claims 6-7, 9, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Kono et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0306074) in further view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0182048) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0017736) in even further view of Sicconi et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0213429).
Regarding claim 6 and similarly with respect to claim 16
Payne modified in view of Kono, Hu, and Sicconi discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 6,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the dangerous situation includes a dangerous state of the driver or a bad weather state.”.
Sicconi discloses “wherein the dangerous situation includes a dangerous state of the driver or a bad weather state.” (See Sicconi [0174] disclosing evaluating a drivers drowsy driving state by analyzing independent eyelids closing frequency/duration/pattern. (Sicconi additionally discloses assessing the weather conditions of the driving route, see [0043]).).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume, and Sicconi are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Sicconi to include determining a drowsiness level of a driver according to the drivers’ eyelids for assessing a risk level of a driving situation. Doing so provides mitigation of travel danger, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously makes driving safer, less expensive, and insurance rates fairer, see Sicconi [0034].
Regarding claim 7 and similarly with respect to claim 17
Refer to section 8d, rejection of claim 9
Regarding claim 9 and similarly with respect to claims 7, 17, and 19
Payne modified in view of Kono, Hu, and Sicconi discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 7,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the distracted state of the driver is a state in which the driver's head rotates at a predetermined angle or more than the predetermined angle from a front of the driver.”.
Sicconi discloses “wherein the distracted state of the driver is a state in which the driver's head rotates at a predetermined angle or more than the predetermined angle from a front of the driver.” (See Sicconi [0054] and [0057] disclosing evaluating a drivers head rotation angles (yaw, pitch, roll and eyes lateral movements) to analyze the driver's attention (or drowsiness) for quantifying a risk level of a driving situation.).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume, and Sicconi are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Sicconi to include determining a distracted state of a driver according to an assessment of the drivers’ head angle rotation. Doing so provides mitigation of travel danger corresponding to a distracted state of driving, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously makes driving safer, less expensive, and insurance rates fairer, see Sicconi [0034].
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0274028) in view of Kono et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0306074) in further view of Hu (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0182048) in even further view of Kume et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0017736) in even further view of Sicconi et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0213429) in even further view of Yi (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0009970).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 20
Payne modified in view of Kono, Hu and Sicconi discloses “The autonomous driving mode control method of claim 6,” and further discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention except “wherein the bad weather state includes any one of a state in which an external temperature is out of a predetermined temperature or higher than the predetermined temperature, a state of being forecasted that precipitation which is greater than or equal to predetermined precipitation has occurred or will occur, a state in which a wind speed is higher than or equal to a predetermined speed, or a combination thereof.”.
Yi discloses “wherein the bad weather state includes any one of a state in which an external temperature is out of a predetermined temperature or higher than the predetermined temperature, a state of being forecasted that precipitation which is greater than or equal to predetermined precipitation has occurred or will occur, a state in which a wind speed is higher than or equal to a predetermined speed, or a combination thereof.” (See Yi [0147] disclosing evaluating the risk of a driving route, including due to the weather, the evaluation of risk levels corresponding to different sections of a driving route including weather elements such as the amount of precipitation, see Yi [0159] or a lot of rain, see Yi [0174].).
Payne, Kono, Hu, Kume, Sicconi, and Yi are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Payne to incorporate the teachings of Yi to include assessing the risk level of a driving route according to a specific weather condition such as a precipitation amount. Doing so provides mitigation of travel danger corresponding to specific weather conditions, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so may advantageously reduce energy consumption by deactivating a sensor unit in some of the plurality of sectors, and by doing so guarantee arrival of the vehicle at a destination safely, see Yi [0007]-[0008] & [0012].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights