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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-077120, filed on 05/09/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 filed on 12/18/2025 are presently examined. Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim objections, the amendment results in the withdrawal of the objection.
Regarding 35 USC 103, the amendment and arguments filed 12/18/2025 are have been fully considered, but the arguments are unpersuasive. Examiner disagrees that the prior art of record do not teach the inclusion of “the intention of the driver to drive being detected as the manual operation of one or more of an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a steering wheel, or a parking brake.”
Ando teaches transition to the pure manual state on condition that an intention of a driver to drive is detected in the pre-standby state.
Letwin teaches transition to the manual state on condition that an intention of a driver to drive is detected, the intention of the driver to drive being detected as the manual operation of one or more of an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a steering wheel, or a parking brake.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ando’s disclosure of driver’s intent of entering the vehicle and starting the car to also include the manual control of vehicle control inputs such as the steering wheel, accelerator/brake pedals, or parking brake. One would be motivated to prevent autonomous mode from taking control of the vehicle when manual control is desired by the user. See the rejection for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando (US 20210237765) in view of Letwin et al. (US 9616896 B1), hereinafter referred to as Ando and Lewtin respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses A vehicle control device connected between an automated driving system and a vehicle platform that performs automated driving according to instructions from the automated driving system ([0007] “a vehicle on which an autonomous driving system (an ADS or an ADK) that creates a driving plan is mountable, and the vehicle includes a vehicle platform (VP) that carries out vehicle control in accordance with an instruction from the autonomous driving system and a vehicle control interface box (VCIB) that interfaces between the vehicle platform and the autonomous driving system.”), the vehicle control device, including a manual driving mode, an automated driving mode, and a standby mode ([0044] “manual mode.” [0193] “autonomy mode” [FIG. 7] steps S25 through S55 are authentication steps, and is similar to “standby” mode before engaging driving mode.); and the vehicle control device comprising:
a memory storing program instructions that include a predetermined application program interface (API) defined for each signal ([0045] “Vehicle control interface 110 receives various commands from ADK 200 or outputs a state of vehicle main body 100 to ADK 200 by executing a prescribed application programming interface (API) defined for each communicated signal.”); and
a processor that interfaces between the automated driving system and the vehicle platform by executing the program instructions ([0045] “Vehicle control interface 110 can communicate with ADK 200 over a controller area network (CAN).”), wherein:
the manual driving mode includes an unknown state (sleep mode [0016] “Since the vehicle control interface box also shuts down during the sleep mode, the autonomous driving system cannot be notified of the power supply mode status by the vehicle control interface box.” Not being notified of the status = unknown state.), a pure manual state (manual mode [0044] “operation by a user) in a manual mode.”), and a pre-standby state (wake mode [0101] “In the sleep mode, when VCIB 111 receives a power supply mode request command that indicates transition to the wake mode from ADK 200 in accordance with a prescribed API, the power supply mode makes transition from the sleep mode to the wake mode.”);
the vehicle platform is configured to receive manual driving operations in the manual driving mode ([0044] “VP 120 carries out travel control (travel control in accordance with an operation by a user) in a manual mode.”),
receive driving instructions from the automated driving system in the automated driving mode ([0007] “an autonomous driving system (an ADS or an ADK) that creates a driving plan is mountable, and the vehicle includes a vehicle platform (VP) that carries out vehicle control in accordance with an instruction from the autonomous driving system and a vehicle control interface box (VCIB) that interfaces between the vehicle platform and the autonomous driving system.”); and
the processor is configured to transition to the pure manual state on condition that a startup instruction by a manual operation is received in the unknown state (sleep mode is the unknown state. [0105] “In the sleep mode, when a start switch of the vehicle is switched on while a driver holds a key, the power supply mode makes transition from the sleep mode to the driving mode.” [0446] “The initial state is the Manual mode. (When Ready ON, the vehicle will start from the Manual mode.)”),
transition to the pre-standby state on condition that a startup instruction is received from the automated driving system in the unknown state (0101] “In the sleep mode, when VCIB 111 receives a power supply mode request command that indicates transition to the wake mode from ADK 200 in accordance with a prescribed API, the power supply mode makes transition from the sleep mode to the wake mode.”),
transition to the standby mode on condition that a condition for transitioning to the standby mode is met in the pre-standby state ([FIG. 7] pre-standby wake mode is “START.” Subsequently, on the condition that ADK receives power supply state = wake, vehicle transitions to an authentication mode, or “standby” in steps S25 through S35. These authentication steps, which are being mapped to the standby state, are repeated until authentication is complete and then the system transitions to drive mode.), and
Ando fails to explicitly disclose receive an operation of shifting a shift range to a parking range, among the manual driving operations, in the standby mode ([FIG. 7] the opportunity for the driver to affect the driving mode result begins in step S30 “turn on body-related ECU.” And the driver can operate the shifting apparatus [0082] “An operation apparatus that can manually be operated by a user for the braking apparatus, the steering apparatus, the EPB, P-Lock, the shift apparatus”).
However, Lewtin teaches receive an operation of shifting a shift range to a parking range, among the manual driving operations, in the standby mode ([column 12, lines 44-55] “The fault detection module 444 may monitor a condition of the shift control module 442 to determine whether the shift control module 442 can safely assume control of the vehicle's steering operations (e.g., in an autonomous manner) … a manual override for the shifting operation may correspond with a user providing shift inputs through a manual input mechanism (e.g., by operating gear selector)..”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando with Lewtin’s teaching of detecting gear shift input when determining whether to activate autonomous mode. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Lewtin’s gear shift override detector in order to prevent autonomy controller from assuming control of the vehicle in an unsafe manner (Lewtin [column 7, lines 46-49] “switching mechanism may provide a highly reliable and detectable “safety override” or “kill switch” to prevent the autonomy controller 84 from assuming control of the vehicle in an unsafe manner.”).
Ando discloses transition to the pure manual state on condition that an intention of a driver to drive is detected in the pre-standby state ([0100] “In the wake mode, VCIB 111 performs processing such as … turn-on of the above-described some body-related ECUs” [0099] “The wake mode (Wake) refers to a state that … ECUs other than VCIB 111 are not on except for some body-related ECUs (for example, a verification ECU for verifying a smart key or a body ECU that controls locking/unlocking of a door)” [0105] “In the sleep mode, when a start switch of the vehicle is switched on while a driver holds a key, the power supply mode makes transition from the sleep mode to the driving mode.” The transitions would be sleep mode” although [0105] is from sleep mode to manual mode, it is clear the vehicle will transition to manual drive mode if the driver holds a key and starts the vehicle.).
Ando fails to explicitly disclose the intention of the driver to drive being detected as the manual operation of one or more of an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a steering wheel, or a parking brake.
However, Letwin teaches transitioning to a manual mode based on the detection of the driver’s intention to enter manual mode, the intention of the driver to drive being detected as the manual operation of one or more of an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a steering wheel, or a parking brake ([column 8, lines 28-36] “the user may disengage and/or disable the autonomous driving mode at any time (e.g., to assume manual control of the vehicle). For example, the autonomy controller 232 may disengage the autonomous driving mode upon detecting user inputs via any of the vehicle's manual input mechanisms (e.g., brake/gas pedals, steering wheel, gear selector, etc.). Still further, the user may disable the autonomous driving mode by pushing the AUTO enable button 210 (e.g., so that the AUTO enable button 210 is in a “down” or “off” position).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando’s disclosure of detecting driver’s intent to enter the manual mode during pre-standby with Lewtin’s teaching of detecting user’s intent to activate manual mode based on user input on the manual input mechanisms. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to include Lewtin’s detection of manual vehicle control user input activating manual mode in order to prevent autonomous mode from assuming control of the vehicle (Letwin [column 8 lines 36-39] “While the autonomous driving mode is disabled, the interface modules 230 are prevented from assuming control of vehicle operations”).
Regarding claim 3, Ando discloses The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transition to the automated driving mode on condition that an automated driving transition instruction is received in the pure manual state (unless ADS wakes the vehicle to enter autonomous mode, the driver may be the actor to start the vehicle, and it would begin in manual mode [0446] “The initial state is the Manual mode. (When Ready ON, the vehicle will start from the Manual mode.)” [0447] “3.3.3.30. Autonomy_Ready” [0448] “Situation of whether the vehicle can transition to autonomy mode or not” the vehicle can transition to autonomous mode while actively in manual mode.).
Regarding claim 4, Ando discloses the situation where transitioning to autonomous mode in not possible and transitions to manual mode ([0246] “Deactivation Request means transition request to manual mode” [0247] “The mode may be able not to be transitioned to Autonomy mode. (e.g. In case that a failure occurs in the vehicle platform.)”). However, it is omitted whether this occurs in Ando’s standby authentication state or when a failure occurs while in autonomous mode.
Ando fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transition to the pure manual state on condition that a standby mode stop instruction is received from the automated driving system in the standby mode.
However, Letwin teaches the processor is configured to transition to the pure manual state on condition that a standby mode stop instruction is received from the automated driving system in the standby mode ([column 9, lines 19-22] “The autonomous vehicle may also return to the manual state 310, from the standby state 330, in response to a disable action 304.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando with Letwin’s teaching of returning to a manual state from the standby state in response to a disable action. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Letwins’s return to manual mode in order to ensure the driver is not unprepared for mode transition (Lewtin [column 9, lines 26-29] “the standby state 330 may ensure that the autonomous vehicle does not engage the autonomous driving mode while the user is unprepared for the transition”).
Regarding claim 5, Ando fails to disclose The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to transition to the pure manual state on condition that an automated driving stop instruction is received from the automated driving system in the automated driving mode ([0245] “Request to transition between manual mode and autonomy mode”).
However, Letwin teaches the processor is configured to transition to the pure manual state on condition that an automated driving stop instruction is received from the automated driving system in the automated driving mode ([column 9, lines 49-53] “vehicle may return to the manual state 310, from the autonomous state 340, at any time in response to a disable action 304 and/or a disengage action 306. For example, the disengage action 306 may be triggered by the autonomy controller 232”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando with Letwin’s teaching of transitioning to manual mode from autonomous mode triggered by the autonomy controller. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Letwin’s transition to manual mode from autonomous in order to transition to manual upon detecting a failure condition in the interface (Lewtin [column 9, lines 53-56] “upon detecting a user input via the one or more manual input mechanisms and/or detecting a failure or fault condition in one or more of the interface modules 230.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando in view of Letwin, further in view of Kote et al. (US 20230195135 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kote.
Regarding claim 2, Ando discloses The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: transition to the automated driving mode on condition that an automated driving transition instruction is received from the automated driving system in the standby mode ([0010] “the wake mode in which the vehicle control interface box is on by power feed from the auxiliary battery without power feed from the high-voltage battery can be set from the autonomous driving system through the vehicle control interface box.” [0103] “In the wake mode, when VCIB 111 receives a power supply mode request command that indicates transition to the driving mode from ADK 200 in accordance with the prescribed API, the power supply mode makes transition from the wake mode to the driving mode.” Autonomous driving kit wakes the vehicle to enter the autonomous driving mode rather than the driver entering manual mode by starting the vehicle with a key.).
Ando fails to disclose transition to the automated driving mode on condition … that the shift range is the parking range.
However, Kote discloses transition to the automated driving mode on condition … that the shift range is the parking range ([0042] “the AV state machine 122 illustrated in FIG. 1 may switch the autonomous vehicle 102 into the unsupervised autonomous driving mode after determining that the autonomous vehicle 102 is in a safe environment (e.g., stationary, parking brake engaged, gearshift status in ‘parked’ state, etc.).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando with Kote’s teaching of only allowing autonomous mode with the gearshift in park range. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Kote’s parked gearshift requirement for autonomous mode in order to ensure the vehicle is in a safe environment before entering autonomous mode (Kote [0042] “autonomous vehicle 102 is in a safe environment”).
Ando discloses transition to an error state when the shift range is not the parking range ([Table 5, [0253] “When the shift range is indeterminate, this output is set to ‘Invalid Value’.”).
Ando fails to disclose transition to an error state on condition that the automated driving transition instruction is received from the automated driving system in the standby mode and the shift range is not the parking range
However, Kote teaches transition to an error state on condition that the automated driving transition instruction is received from the automated driving system in the standby mode and the shift range is not the parking range (Kote [0042] (e.g., stationary, parking brake engaged, gearshift status in ‘parked’ state, etc.). In some cases, a failure of the one or more safety checks may cause the AV state machine 122 to send an error message”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ando with Kote’s teaching of sending an error message if the gearshift in not in parked status when attempting to transition to autonomous mode. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to include Kote’s error message for not having the gearshift in park in order to prevent the autonomous vehicle from entering autonomous mode under a failure of ensuring the safety of the vehicle (Kote [0042] “after determining that the autonomous vehicle 102 is in a safe environment … a failure of the one or more safety checks”).S
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668