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 .
Claim Status
Claims 6-9 have been added. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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 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(s) 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0070849 A1) hereinafter Suzuki, Sato (US 2015/0291216 A1) hereinafter Sato, and Jonasson et al. (US 2007/0131473 A1) hereinafter Jonasson.
Claim 1:
Suzuki discloses a motion manager in a vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to: receive a plurality of action plans from a plurality of application software, each action plan including information indicating a control mode of a
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose select an action plan from an application with an execution priority that is highest among the application software with the action plans that have been received; and a control mode of a rear wheel steering device; wherein outputting the control mode in the action plan selected causes a rear wheel of the vehicle to be steered according to the control mode of the action plan selected, the control mode is one of a zero degree mode, a reverse phase mode, or an in-phase mode, the zero degree mode is a mode in which a steering angle of the rear wheel is set to zero degrees, the reverse phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a direction opposite to a steering direction of a front wheel of the vehicle, the in-phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a same direction as the steering direction of the front wheel, and the execution priority of the application software is in an order of a collision avoidance application, an unmanned premise application, and a driving assistance application from high to low.
However, Sato discloses select an action plan from an application with an execution priority that is highest among the application software with the action plans that have been received [¶¶177-180, 263]; and the execution priority of the application software is in an order of a collision avoidance application, an unmanned premise application, and a driving assistance application from high to low. [¶¶177-180, 263]
Further Jonasson discloses a control mode of a rear wheel steering device; wherein outputting the control mode in the action plan selected causes a rear wheel of the vehicle to be steered according to the control mode of the action plan selected, [¶¶34-35; Fig. 4] the control mode is one of a zero degree mode, a reverse phase mode, or an in-phase mode, the zero degree mode is a mode in which a steering angle of the rear wheel is set to zero degrees, the reverse phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a direction opposite to a steering direction of a front wheel of the vehicle, the in-phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a same direction as the steering direction of the front wheel [¶7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the motion manager of Suzuki with the arbitration of Sato to enhance the safety of the vehicle depending on environmental conditions of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the motion manager of Suzuki and Sato with the four wheel steering of Jonasson to increase stability and handling at various different driving situations.
Sato discloses, "assistance is performed with a priority given to the collision avoidance assistance even in a vehicle in which a plurality of types of assistance," in ¶177 and "when information that indicates a control amount is input from at least two of the lane-keeping assisting section 220, the skidding suppressing section 230 and the autonomous travel assisting section 240, the timing changing section 310 arbitrates between these sections," in ¶178. Sato goes on to indicate that arbitration is, "determined based on driving environments of the vehicle and the control amounts used in various types of assistance," in ¶263. Therefore, clear priority is given to collision avoidance above all else and situational priority can be given to an autonomous travel assisting section over lane keep assist. Therefore, the limitations exist in that specific scenario.
Claim 2:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to select an action plan of an application to avoid a vehicle collision as an action plan having the highest priority.
However, Sato does disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to select an action plan of an application to avoid a vehicle collision as an action plan having the highest priority. [¶¶177-180, 263]
Claim 4:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki also discloses the plurality of the application software, wherein the application software is configured to send information indicating the control mode of the rear wheel steering device to the motion manager [¶¶29-32].
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose indicating the control mode of the rear wheel steering device to the motion manager.
However, Jonasson does disclose indicating the control mode of the rear wheel steering device to the motion manager [¶¶34-35; Fig. 4].
Claim 5:
Suzuki discloses a vehicle control method executed by a computer mounted on a vehicle, the vehicle control method comprising: receiving, by the computer, a plurality of action plans from a plurality of application software, each action plan including information indicating a control mode of a
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose selecting, by the computer, an action plan from an application with an execution priority that is highest among the application software with the action plans that have been received; a control mode of a rear wheel steering device; steering a rear wheel of the vehicle according to the control mode of the action plan selected, wherein the control mode is one of a zero degree mode, a reverse phase mode, or an in-phase mode, the zero degree mode is a mode in which a steering angle of the rear wheel is set to zero degrees, the reverse phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a direction opposite to a steering direction of a front wheel of the vehicle, the in-phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a same direction as the steering direction of the front wheel, and the execution priority of the application software is in an order of a collision avoidance application, an unmanned premise application, and a driving assistance application from high to low.
However, Sato discloses selecting, by the computer, an action plan from an application with an execution priority that is highest among the application software with the action plans that have been received [¶¶177-180, 263] the execution priority of the application software is in an order of a collision avoidance application, an unmanned premise application, and a driving assistance application from high to low. [¶¶177-180, 263]
Further Jonasson discloses a control mode of a rear wheel steering device [¶¶34-35; Fig. 4] steering a rear wheel of the vehicle according to the control mode of the action plan selected, wherein the control mode is one of a zero degree mode, a reverse phase mode, or an in-phase mode, the zero degree mode is a mode in which a steering angle of the rear wheel is set to zero degrees, the reverse phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a direction opposite to a steering direction of a front wheel of the vehicle, the in-phase mode is a mode in which the rear wheel is steered in a same direction as the steering direction of the front wheel [¶7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the motion manager of Suzuki with the arbitration of Sato to enhance the safety of the vehicle depending on environmental conditions of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the motion manager of Suzuki and Sato with the four wheel steering of Jonasson to increase stability and handling at various different driving situations.
Sato discloses, "assistance is performed with a priority given to the collision avoidance assistance even in a vehicle in which a plurality of types of assistance," in ¶177 and "when information that indicates a control amount is input from at least two of the lane-keeping assisting section 220, the skidding suppressing section 230 and the autonomous travel assisting section 240, the timing changing section 310 arbitrates between these sections," in ¶178. Sato goes on to indicate that arbitration is, "determined based on driving environments of the vehicle and the control amounts used in various types of assistance," in ¶263. Therefore, clear priority is given to collision avoidance above all else and situational priority can be given to an autonomous travel assisting section over lane keep assist. Therefore, the limitations exist in that specific scenario.
Claim 6:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the application software includes an application software for autonomous emergency braking, an application software for lane keeping assistance, an application for following driving, or an application software for parking assistance.
However, Sato discloses wherein the application software includes an application software for autonomous emergency braking, an application software for lane keeping assistance, an application for following driving, or an application software for parking assistance. [¶¶177-180, 263]
Claim 7:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki also discloses wherein the action plan selected further includes an acceleration requested to the vehicle [¶24].
Claim 8:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the outputting of the control mode further includes outputting a steering angle of the rear wheel.
However, Jonasson discloses wherein the outputting of the control mode further includes outputting a steering angle of the rear wheel. [¶¶34-35; Fig. 4]
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0262808 A1) hereinafter Wang.
Claim 3:
Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the application software is downloadable from an external server.
However, Wang does disclose wherein the application software is downloadable from an external server. [¶132]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the motion manager of Suzuki, Sato, and Jonasson with the application software of Wang to provide means for installing and updating necessary control programs on the vehicle.
Claim 9:
Suzuki, Sato, Jonasson, and Wang as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Suzuki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the application downloaded from an external server is a new application for a storage device of an advanced driving assistance ECU in the vehicle.
However, Wang does disclose wherein the application downloaded from an external server is a new application for a storage device of an advanced driving assistance ECU in the vehicle. [¶¶129-132]
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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747