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 . Claims 1-7 were previously pending. Claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 8-14 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokaki (US 2020/0377083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kokaki discloses a traveling control system configured to control traveling of a movable body, comprising: a memory for storing program code, and an electronic control unit configured to operate as instructed by the stored program code (see at least [0052] – automated driving controller 100… processor such as a CPU executing a program); wherein said program code includes code to cause said electronic control unit to obtain information about an unevenness surface of a travel region where the movable body travels (see at least Figs. 4, 7-11, [0081-0089] – feature quantities of an object 330 ahead of the vehicle M), said program code includes code to determine, based on the obtained information about the unevenness surface of the travel region, whether a size of a protrusion of the road surface would be reduced if a wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant); and said program code includes travel control code to cause said electronic control unit to control traveling of the movable body such that the wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion if the electronic control unit determines that the protrusion size would be reduced (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant).
Regarding claim 2, Kokaki discloses wherein the traveling control code includes code to determine whether traveling of the movable body in which the wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion is permitted, based on at least one of a state of the movable body and a condition of the road surface (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant).
Regarding claim 3, Kokaki discloses wherein, when the electronic control unit determines that traveling of the movable body in which the wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion is not permitted, the electronic control unit determines a travel route of the movable body to be a route that causes the wheel to avoid the protrusion (see at least Fig. 9, [0085, 0099] - in a case in which the type of the object 330 is a sharp object or an animal or in a case in which the height h2 of the object 330 is larger than the minimum under clearance h1 of the vehicle M, the passage/no-passage determiner 124 determines that passage with the object 330 overstepped cannot be performed and the action plan generator 123 generates an action plan for running with the object 330 avoided), and wherein, where traveling of the movable body in which the wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion is permitted, the electronic control unit determines the travel route of the movable body to be a route that causes the wheel to pass over the protrusion (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant).
Regarding claim 4, Kokaki discloses wherein, when the electronic control unit determines traveling of the movable body in which the wheel of the movable body passes over the protrusion is permitted, the electronic control unit determines a travel speed of the movable body based on at least one of a state of the movable body and a condition of the road surface (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant… the action plan generator 123, for example, performs deceleration control from a predetermined distance before overstepping the obstacle).
Regarding claim 12, Kokaki discloses wherein the information about the unevenness surface of the travel region includes a height of the protrusion (see at least [0083, 0085-0086, 0088-0089] – height of object 330).
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokaki in view of Fukada (US 5,627,756 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic control unit controls traveling of the movable body such that a turning outer wheel of the movable body, which is located on an outer side in a turning state of the movable body, passes over the protrusion of the road surface in the turning state of the movable body.
However, Kokaki does disclose wherein the electronic control unit controls traveling of the movable body such that a wheel of the movable body, passes over the protrusion of the road surface (see at least Figs. 10-11, [0089-0099] – extract a degree of deformation of the object 330… determine whether or not the content of the object 330 is vacant… determine that passage with the object 330 overstepped can be performed in a case in which the content of the object 330 is determined to be vacant).
Fukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a turning outer wheel of a movable body, which is located on an outer side in a turning state of the movable body, should pass a road surface in the turning state of the movable body at a higher elevation (column 8, lines 45-60 - When a vehicle runs along a curved road with the outside vehicle wheels of the turn being supported at a higher level than the inside vehicle wheels of the turn by a cant of the road surface, the lateral acceleration Gy is modified to be decreased by the cant compensation quantity so that the turn behavior of the vehicle is more correctly presumed. However, when a vehicle runs along a curved road with the outside vehicle wheels of the turn being supported by the road surface at a lower level than the inside vehicle wheels due to a cant of the road surface, the lateral acceleration Gy is modified to be increased by the cant compensation quantity. In this case, the lateral slide velocity Vy calculated based upon deviation Gy-Vr increases due to the cant compensation, leading to a possibility that the behavior presuming means presumes that the vehicle is making a spin although it is making no such spin.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Fukada into the invention of Kokaki with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the conclusion that an outer wheel should traverse the bump (as opposed to an inner wheel) during a turn. The motivation of doing so is that when a vehicle runs along a curved road with the outside vehicle wheels of the turn being supported at a higher level than the inside vehicle wheels of the turn by a cant of the road surface, the lateral acceleration is modified to be decreased by the cant compensation quantity so that the turn behavior of the vehicle is more correctly presumed (Fukada – column 8, lines 45-60). Fukada also teaches that this is well known in the art as a vehicle turns due to centripetal acceleration (Fukada – column 7, lines 5-10). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply this concept of the outer wheel assuming a higher height when possible on a turn as taught by Fukada to Kokaki’s invention and doing so would yield predictable results.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokaki in view of Giovanardi (US 2022/0281456 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the movable body includes: at least one of rear cameras and LiDAR devices configured to obtain a condition of the road surface after the wheel passes over the protrusion; and to supply, to the electronic control unit, the obtained road surface condition representing the unevenness condition of the road surface behind the movable body.
Giovanardi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the movable body includes: at least one of rear cameras and LiDAR devices configured to obtain a condition of the road surface after the wheel passes over the protrusion (see at least [0133, 0521, 0525-0526] – obtaining an image of the road surface feature by using a rear-facing camera that captures images of road surface features such as bumps); and to supply, to the electronic control unit, the obtained road surface condition representing the unevenness condition of the road surface behind the movable body (see at least [0133, 0525-0526] – confirming the value of the parameter by processing the image obtained by the rear-facing camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Giovanardi into the invention of Kokaki with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to confirm the road condition (such as road events, road roughness, etc.) prior to updating the database which can then be used to warn or enforce driving speeds for other vehicles based on upcoming road information in order to improve safety and comfort of driving (Giovanardi – [0064, 0525-0526]). The use of multiple rear-facing cameras or LiDAR devices would have been generally obvious, since Giovanardi mentions using rear facing optical devices and explicitly discloses a variety of front, side, and rear facing optical devices. Incorporating multiple rear facing cameras or LiDAR devices would enhance the accuracy of confirming the road condition behind the vehicle. This modification would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the said program code includes code to estimate a size of a protrusion of the road surface after the wheel passes the protrusion, based on at least one of a condition of the road surface and a state of the movable body.
Giovanardi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the said program code includes code to estimate a size of a protrusion of the road surface after the wheel passes the protrusion, based on at least one of a condition of the road surface and a state of the movable body (see at least [0133, 0301, 0525-0526] – confirming the value of the parameter by processing the image obtained by the rear-facing camera… parameters related to height variations).
The motivation to combine Kokaki and Giovanardi is the same as in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the state of the movable body includes at least one of a weight of the movable body and a load of the movable body.
Giovanardi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the state of the movable body includes at least one of a weight of the movable body and a load of the movable body (see at least [0307, 0313, 0437] – vehicle information 110 may include, for example, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, a type of vehicle (e.g., sports car, sedan, SUV, pickup truck, etc.)… vehicle’s own weight… data from sporty sedans (which, for example, may perform overtaking maneuvers more often or at different locations than other types of vehicles) may be separated from data from pickup trucks or large SUVs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Giovanardi into the invention of Kokaki with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to take into account the vehicle class when analyzing the road event information (Giovanardi – [0313]). When a deformable object is identified in the road (Kokaki – [0089]), by taking into account the class of vehicle (i.e., a sports car, a large SUV, a semi-truck, etc.,) the vehicle can be more safely controlled in response to the type of object identified in the road. For example, a semi-truck associated with a much higher weight can more safely run over different types of obstacles than a small sports car associated with a much lower weight. The weight/load also contributes to how easily the vehicle can maneuver to avoid the obstacle. For example, at higher speeds a sports car can more easily and safely maneuver to avoid an obstacle than a semi-truck (as is described in Giovanardi – [0437]. Drivers take into account various parameters when making decisions while driving, such as how large or heavy their vehicle is. Automating a decision that is commonly otherwise made by a driver would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the greater the weight and load of the movable body, the more likely the electronic control unit will provide permission for the wheel of the movable body to pass over the protrusion.
Giovanardi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the greater the weight and load of the movable body, the more likely the electronic control unit will provide permission for the wheel of the movable body to pass over the protrusion (see at least [0307, 0313, 0437] – vehicle information 110 may include, for example, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, a type of vehicle (e.g., sports car, sedan, SUV, pickup truck, etc.)… vehicle’s own weight… data from sporty sedans (which, for example, may perform overtaking maneuvers more often or at different locations than other types of vehicles) may be separated from data from pickup trucks or large SUVs).
The motivation to combine Kokaki and Giovanardi is the same as in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokaki in view of Terauchi (JP 2018-159570 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 10, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the electronic control unit obtains information representing the wetness degree of the protrusion, and wherein the condition of the road surface includes the wetness degree of the protrusion.
Terauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the electronic control unit obtains information representing the wetness degree of the protrusion, and wherein the condition of the road surface includes the wetness degree of the protrusion (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0023-0026, 0032-0036, 0064] – first mode when there is heavy rain or snow and a second mode when there is neither heavy rain nor heavy snow (when it is sunny or when it is drizzling)…if the detected object is determined as an obstacle, control device 3 controls the mobile device 1 to avoid the obstacle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Terauchi into the invention of Kokaki with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to differentiate between obstacles and clumps of rain or snow when driving (Terauchi – [0007]). Modifying the process to take into account whether a lump, pile, or other protrusion is slush or snow (instead of a dangerous object such as a similarly sized piece of metal) in order to decide whether to pass over the protrusion or not would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Kokaki does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the higher protrusion wetness degree, the more likely the electronic control unit will provide permission for the wheel of the movable body to pass over the protrusion.
Terauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the higher protrusion wetness degree, the more likely the electronic control unit will provide permission for the wheel of the movable body to pass over the protrusion (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0023-0026, 0032-0036, 0064] – first mode when there is heavy rain or snow and a second mode when there is neither heavy rain nor heavy snow (when it is sunny or when it is drizzling)…if the detected object is determined as an obstacle, control device 3 controls the mobile device 1 to avoid the obstacle).
The motivation to combine Kokaki and Terauchi is the same as in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections 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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669