DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, and 16 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 7-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPGPub 2021/0223790) in view of Lacaze et al. (USPGPub 2021/0107523). As per claim 1, Park discloses an autonomous vehicle (see at least paragraph 0011; wherein an autonomous vehicle) comprising: a positioning system (see at least paragraph 0069; wherein the computing apparatus 100 may obtain the location information of the vehicle from a location sensor (e.g., a Global Positioning System (GPS) sensor) provided in the vehicle); and a controller (see at least Figure 2 item 110) configured to: obtain autonomous vehicle position information from the positioning system (see at least paragraph 0088; wherein at step S210, the computing apparatus 100 may obtain the current location information of the vehicle and path trajectory information); determine, based on the autonomous vehicle position information, that the autonomous vehicle is located within a high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) (see at least paragraph 0089 and Figure 5; wherein at step S220, the computing apparatus 100 may determine whether the vehicle will pass through the preset first area based on the current location and path trajectory of the vehicle obtained at step S210); determine, based on the one or more potential paths of the autonomous vehicle, whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists (see at least paragraph 0090 and Figure 5; wherein when it is determined at step S220 that the vehicle will pass through the preset first area, the computing apparatus 100 may obtain information related to a second area corresponding to the first area through which the vehicle will pass and information related to a condition for the second area at step S230… see at least paragraph 0081; wherein the computing apparatus 100 may determine that the condition is satisfied when an object is not present in the second area); and cause, based on determining whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, an autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed (see at least paragraph 0092 and Figure 5; wherein when it is determined at step S240 that the condition is satisfied, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to cause the future speed of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle passes through the first area to be the first speed at step S250). Park does not explicitly mention high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area; and determine, based on a speed limit range of the HPDBR and the autonomous vehicle position information, one or more potential paths of the autonomous vehicle. However Lacaze does disclose: high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the autonomous vehicle that has a set of emergency rules that allows it to overcome the standard rules of the road in emergency situations. For example, these extended set of rules may allow the ambulance to drive through a red light, exceed the speed limit, cross into oncoming traffic or stop in otherwise prohibited locations); and determine, based on a speed limit range of the HPDBR and the autonomous vehicle position information, one or more potential paths of the autonomous vehicle (see at least paragraph 0023; wherein the controller uses the road network to select and follow a route that minimizes the time to the emergency location while still following the rules of the road). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lacaze with the teachings as in Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to free up time for the paramedics to do the most important functions inside the ambulance that involves saving the lives of people, see Lacaze paragraph 0009. As per claim 2, Park discloses wherein the controller, to cause the autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed, is configured to: send, based on determining that an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk does not exist, one or more first commands to cause a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be within the speed limit range of the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0083; wherein when an object is not present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be a set normal travel speed (e.g., 50 to 60 km/h based on a downtown area) according to a preset autonomous driving scenario), or send, based on determining that an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, one or more second commands to cause the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a current estimated speed of the autonomous vehicle that is indicated by the autonomous vehicle position information (see at least paragraph 0082; wherein when an object is present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be less than a reference speed (a slow state)). As per claims 7 and 14, Park discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain other vehicle position information (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein determining whether an object is present in a second area preset on the wide road and preset at a location spaced apart from the merging point by a predetermined distance in the direction opposite to a direction passing through the merging point); determine, based on the other vehicle position information, one or more estimated trajectories of another vehicle (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein determining whether an object is present in a second area preset on the wide road and preset at a location spaced apart from the merging point by a predetermined distance in the direction opposite to a direction passing through the merging point); determine, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein determining whether an object is present in a second area preset on the wide road and preset at a location spaced apart from the merging point by a predetermined distance in the direction opposite to a direction passing through the merging point); and cause, based on determining whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists, another autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein determining a control command to cause the speed of the vehicle to maintain 0 in response to the determination that the object is present in the second area, and determining a control command to cause the speed of the vehicle to be a preset speed in response to the determination that the object is not present in the second area). As per claims 8, 10, and 15, Park discloses wherein the controller, to cause the other autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed, is configured to: send, based on determining that an HPDBR intersection risk does not exist, one or more first commands to cause a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be within the speed limit range of the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0083; wherein when an object is not present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be a set normal travel speed (e.g., 50 to 60 km/h based on a downtown area) according to a preset autonomous driving scenario), and send, based on determining that an HPDBR intersection risk exists, one or more second commands to cause the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a minimum speed of the speed limit range of the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0082; wherein when an object is present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be less than a reference speed (a slow state)). As per claim 9, Park discloses a controller of an autonomous vehicle, comprising: one or more memories (see at least Figure 2; item 120); and one or more processors (see at least Figure 2 item 110) configured to: obtain autonomous vehicle position information from a positioning system of the autonomous vehicle (see at least paragraph 0088; wherein at step S210, the computing apparatus 100 may obtain the current location information of the vehicle and path trajectory information); determine, based on the autonomous vehicle position information, that the autonomous vehicle is located within a high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) (see at least paragraph 0089 and Figure 5; wherein at step S220, the computing apparatus 100 may determine whether the vehicle will pass through the preset first area based on the current location and path trajectory of the vehicle obtained at step S210); cause, based on determining whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists, an autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed (see at least paragraph 0092 and Figure 5; wherein when it is determined at step S240 that the condition is satisfied, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to cause the future speed of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle passes through the first area to be the first speed at step S250). Park does not explicitly mention high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area; obtain, based on determining that the autonomous vehicle is located within the HPDBR, other vehicle position information; determine, based on the other vehicle position information, one or more estimated trajectories of another vehicle; determine, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists. However Lacaze does disclose: high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the autonomous vehicle that has a set of emergency rules that allows it to overcome the standard rules of the road in emergency situations. For example, these extended set of rules may allow the ambulance to drive through a red light, exceed the speed limit, cross into oncoming traffic or stop in otherwise prohibited locations); obtain, based on determining that the autonomous vehicle is located within the HPDBR, other vehicle position information (see at least paragraph 0027; wherein the autonomous ambulance uses its own sensors to create a map of the emergency location. The map can contain locations of doorways, windows, other vehicles, trees/vegetation, and humans/animals, etc); determine, based on the other vehicle position information, one or more estimated trajectories of another vehicle (see at least paragraph 0033; wherein the autonomous ambulance system can signal or send commands to other vehicles in the vicinity to support the emergency operation such as moving out of the way, parking on the side of the road, et); determine, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists (see at least paragraph 0035; wherein the autonomous system can illuminate an area where the emergency procedure is being attempted. The autonomous system can call the police, other ambulance or fire/rescue vehicle given the particular detection). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lacaze with the teachings as in Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to free up time for the paramedics to do the most important functions inside the ambulance that involves saving the lives of people, see Lacaze paragraph 0009. As per claim 12, Park discloses wherein the one or more processors, to determine whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists, are configured to: determine that each estimated trajectory, of the one or more estimated trajectories, does not cross into the HPDBR; and determine, based on determining that each estimated trajectory does not cross into the HPDBR, that an HPDBR intersection risk does not exist (see at least paragraph 0083; wherein When it is determined at step S140 that the condition is satisfied, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to cause the speed of the vehicle to be a second speed at step S160. For example, when an object is not present in the second area or when an object is present in the second area but a value obtained by dividing the distance between the object and the vehicle by the moving speed of the object exceeds the reference time, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be a set normal travel speed (e.g., 50 to 60 km/h based on a downtown area) according to a preset autonomous driving scenario). As per claim 13, Park discloses wherein the one or more processors, to determine whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists, are configured to: determine, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, that at least one estimated trajectory, of the one or more estimated trajectories, crosses into the HPDBR; and determine, based on determining that the at least one estimated trajectory crosses into the HPDBR, that an HPDBR intersection risk exists (see at least paragraph 0082; wherein When it is determined at step S140 that the condition is not satisfied, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to cause the speed of the vehicle to be a first speed at step S150. For example, when an object is present in the second area or when a value obtained by dividing the distance between the object and the vehicle in the second area by the moving speed of the object does not exceed the reference time, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be 0 (a stopped state) or a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be less than a reference speed (a slow state)). As per claim 16, Park discloses a method, comprising: obtaining, by a controller of an autonomous vehicle, autonomous vehicle position information (see at least paragraph 0088; wherein at step S210, the computing apparatus 100 may obtain the current location information of the vehicle and path trajectory information); determining, by the controller and based on the autonomous vehicle position information, that the autonomous vehicle is located within a high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) (see at least paragraph 0089 and Figure 5; wherein at step S220, the computing apparatus 100 may determine whether the vehicle will pass through the preset first area based on the current location and path trajectory of the vehicle obtained at step S210); determining, by the controller and based on determining that the autonomous vehicle is located within the HPDBR, whether an HPDBR-related risk exists (see at least paragraph 0090 and Figure 5; wherein when it is determined at step S220 that the vehicle will pass through the preset first area, the computing apparatus 100 may obtain information related to a second area corresponding to the first area through which the vehicle will pass and information related to a condition for the second area at step S230… see at least paragraph 0081; wherein the computing apparatus 100 may determine that the condition is satisfied when an object is not present in the second area); and causing, by the controller and based on determining whether an HPDBR-related risk exists, an autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed (see at least paragraph 0092 and Figure 5; wherein when it is determined at step S240 that the condition is satisfied, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to cause the future speed of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle passes through the first area to be the first speed at step S250). Park does not explicitly mention high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area. However Lacaze does disclose: high performance driving behavior region (HPDBR) extending across a portion of lane of an autonomous driving area, wherein the HPDBR is associated with permitting the autonomous vehicle to exceed a maximum speed indicated by a speed plan of the autonomous vehicle for the autonomous driving area (see at least paragraph 0031; wherein the autonomous vehicle that has a set of emergency rules that allows it to overcome the standard rules of the road in emergency situations. For example, these extended set of rules may allow the ambulance to drive through a red light, exceed the speed limit, cross into oncoming traffic or stop in otherwise prohibited locations). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lacaze with the teachings as in Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to free up time for the paramedics to do the most important functions inside the ambulance that involves saving the lives of people, see Lacaze paragraph 0009.
As per claim 17, Park discloses wherein determining whether an HPDBR-related risk exists comprises at least one of: determining whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists; or determining whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists (see at least paragraph 0091; wherein at step S240, the computing apparatus 100 may determine whether a condition is satisfied based on the information related to the second area and the information related to the condition for the second area obtained at step S230 (e.g., step S140 of FIG. 3)). As per claim 20, Park The method of claim 16, wherein causing the autonomous vehicle speed control operation to be performed comprises one of: causing, based on determining that an HPDBR-related risk does not exist, a speed of the autonomous vehicle to be within a speed limit range of the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0083; wherein when an object is not present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be a set normal travel speed (e.g., 50 to 60 km/h based on a downtown area) according to a preset autonomous driving scenario), or causing, based on determining that an HPDBR-related risk exists, the speed of the autonomous vehicle to be less than a minimum speed of the speed limit range of the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0082; wherein when an object is present in the second area, the computing apparatus 100 may determine a control command to control the speed of the vehicle to be less than a reference speed (a slow state)).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPGPub 2021/0223790), in view of Lacaze et al. (USPGPub 2021/0107523), and further in view of Dahl (USPGPub 2025/0164252). As per claims 3 and 11, Park and Lacaze do not explicitly mention wherein the autonomous vehicle position information indicates autonomous vehicle position estimation error information and at least one of: a current estimated location of the autonomous vehicle, a current estimated heading of the autonomous vehicle, or a current estimated speed of the autonomous vehicle. However Dahl does disclose: wherein the autonomous vehicle position information indicates autonomous vehicle position estimation error information (Dahl see at least paragraph 047; wherein predict errors in dead reckoning position estimates and determine a current location of the vehicle) and at least one of: a current estimated location of the autonomous vehicle (see at least paragraph 047; wherein predict errors in dead reckoning position estimates and determine a current location of the vehicle), a current estimated heading of the autonomous vehicle, or a current estimated speed of the autonomous vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Dahl with the teachings as in Park and Lacaze. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the dead reckoning location, see Dahl paragraph 0042.
Claims 4-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (USPGPub 2021/0223790), in view of Lacaze et al. (USPGPub 2021/0107523), and further in view of Hirosawa et al. (USPGPub 2020/0307593). As per claim 4, Park and Lacaze do not explicitly mention wherein the controller, to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, is configured to: determine, based on the one or more potential paths of the autonomous vehicle, an estimated drift of the autonomous vehicle from a lane associated with the HPDBR; identify an estimated available margin of the autonomous vehicle within the lane; and compare the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists. However Hirosawa does disclose: wherein the controller, to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, is configured to: determine, based on the one or more potential paths of the autonomous vehicle, an estimated drift of the autonomous vehicle from a lane associated with the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)); identify an estimated available margin of the autonomous vehicle within the lane (see at least paragraph 0116; wherein when the lane change target position TAs is set, the target trajectory generator 144 generates a plurality of target trajectory candidates for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes); and compare the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hirosawa with the teachings as in Park and Lacaze. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform automated driving in which the occupant is unlikely to feel uncomfortable, see Hirosawa paragraph 0025. As per claim 5, Hirosawa discloses wherein the controller, to compare the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, is configured to: determine that the estimated drift is greater than the estimated available margin (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)); and determine, based on determining that the estimated drift is greater than the estimated available margin, that an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein the target trajectory generator 144 sets a prohibited region RA in which the presence of another vehicle is prohibited in the adjacent lane LN2, and when a part of another vehicle is not present in the prohibited region RA, and each of the time to collision (TTC) of the host vehicle M and the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC is larger than a threshold value, it is determined that it is possible to change lanes). As per claim 6, Hirosawa discloses wherein the controller, to compare the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists, is configured to: determine that the estimated drift is less than or equal to the estimated available margin (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)); and determine, based on determining that the estimated drift is less than or equal to the estimated available margin, that an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk does not exist (see at least paragraph 0123; wherein when it is determined that it is not possible to change lanes, the target trajectory generator 144 selects two other new vehicles from among a plurality of other vehicles that are traveling in the adjacent lane LN2, and resets the lane change target position TAs between the two newly selected other vehicles. One of the two newly selected other vehicles may be a previously selected other vehicle). As per claim 18, Park and Lacaze do not explicitly mention wherein determining whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists comprises: determining an estimated drift of the autonomous vehicle from a lane associated with the HPDBR; identifying an estimated available margin of the autonomous vehicle within the lane; and comparing the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists; based on a speed limit range of the HPDBR and the autonomous vehicle position information. However Hirosawa doe disclose: wherein determining whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists comprises: determining an estimated drift of the autonomous vehicle from a lane associated with the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)); identifying an estimated available margin of the autonomous vehicle within the lane (see at least paragraph 0116; wherein when the lane change target position TAs is set, the target trajectory generator 144 generates a plurality of target trajectory candidates for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes); and comparing the estimated drift and the estimated available margin to determine whether an autonomous vehicle lane breach risk exists (see at least paragraph 0119; wherein when the target trajectory generator 144 sets the lane change target position TAs and generates a target trajectory for causing the host vehicle M to change lanes to the lane change target position TAs, it is determined whether the lane can be changed to the lane change target position TAs (that is between the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC)); based on a speed limit range of the HPDBR and the autonomous vehicle position information (see at least paragraph 0111; wherein the target trajectory includes, for example, a position element that determines the future position of the host vehicle M and a speed element that determines the future speed of the host vehicle M). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hirosawa with the teachings as in Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform automated driving in which the occupant is unlikely to feel uncomfortable, see Hirosawa paragraph 0025. As per claim 19, Park and Lacaze do not explicitly mention wherein determining whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists comprises: determining, based on other vehicle position information, one or more estimated trajectories of another vehicle; and determining, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, whether at least one estimated trajectory, of the one or more estimated trajectories, crosses into the HPDBR. However Hirosawa does disclose: wherein determining whether an HPDBR intersection risk exists comprises: determining, based on other vehicle position information, one or more estimated trajectories of another vehicle; and determining, based on the one or more estimated trajectories of the other vehicle, whether at least one estimated trajectory, of the one or more estimated trajectories, crosses into the HPDBR (see at least paragraph 0120; wherein the target trajectory generator 144 sets a prohibited region RA in which the presence of another vehicle is prohibited in the adjacent lane LN2, and when a part of another vehicle is not present in the prohibited region RA, and each of the time to collision (TTC) of the host vehicle M and the forward reference vehicle mB and the rearward reference vehicle mC is larger than a threshold value, it is determined that it is possible to change lanes). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Hirosawa with the teachings as in Park. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform automated driving in which the occupant is unlikely to feel uncomfortable, see Hirosawa paragraph 0025.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2025/0091609 – Provides generating routing information for a vehicle configured with an advanced driver assistance system according to the disclosure includes obtaining a desired destination, obtaining operational design domain information based at least in part on a geographic area comprising a present location and the desired destination, and generating routing information based at least in part on collaboration information for one or more driving assistance functions associated with the operational design domain information, the collaboration information comprising indications of physical actions performed by vehicle operators when the one or more driving assistance functions are activated. USPGPub 2024/0077888 – Provides platooning using Ultra Wideband (UWB)-based security authentication. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus of platooning, which prevent spoofing and merge or separate vehicles using UWB-based security authentication.
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 MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights