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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2023 and 5/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “wherein the one or more processors” should read “wherein the one or more processors:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “more severe” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more severe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “determine… whether the autonomous driving device has an intention to perform vehicle control… causing satisfaction of the first operating condition, whether the driving device has an intention to perform vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition, or whether the autonomous driving device has an intention to stop the preventive safety function” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. This limitation reads as just controlling a vehicle. For example, if the “first operating condition” is that a vehicle is drifting from the center of a lane, and intention to satisfy the first operating condition is an intent of steering for a lane change (as recited in claim 2) and the other options are to “an intention to perform vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction” and “intention to stop the preventive safety function,” then the vehicle is simply being controlled in any scenario. Therefore, it is unclear what this claim is trying to distinctly claim.
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 2-5 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the control for the preventive safety is to decelerate to avoid collision” and that “the intention of the autonomous driving device to perform the vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition is… decelerating for avoiding an obstacle.” These limitations render the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear how a preventive safety control is to decelerate when the intent to control is also to decelerate. It is unclear what is being claimed by this limitation.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is unclear what is being claimed.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent -Application Publication No. 2019/0071091 A1; hereinafter Zhu) in view of You (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0108869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses:
A preventive safety device having a preventive safety function for control for preventive safety of a vehicle (lane assistant system of autonomous driving vehicle, see at least [0014]), the preventive safety device comprising one or more processors (all components implemented by processor, see at least [0059]), wherein
the one or more processors receive an input of a driving signal from an autonomous driving device for performing autonomous driving of the vehicle (determine whether turn signal of vehicle has been turned on, see at least [0046]),
determine whether a first operating condition for activating the preventive safety function is satisfied (detected that autonomous driving vehicle is drifting toward an edge or side of the current lane, see at least [0015]; vehicle is drifting off the center line moving toward the right side, see at least [0045]-[0046]),
determine, based on the driving signal, whether an intention to perform vehicle control causing satisfaction of the first operating condition, whether the autonomous driving device has an intention to perform vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition, or whether the autonomous driving device has an intention to stop the preventive safety function (user intention of driver is determined based on user actions to determine that user intention is to leave current lane, see at least [0015]; one indication of intentional leaving of current lane is whether a turn signal of the vehicle has been turned on that is consistent with the drifting direction of the vehicle, see at least [0046]),
activate the preventive safety function in response to the satisfaction of the first operating condition, when the autonomous driving device does not have any of the intentions (if user intention is not to leave the current lane, lane assistance can be provided for automatically providing warning and correcting of the moving direction of the vehicle to keep the vehicle remained in the lane, see at least [0014]-[0015] and [0052]), and
(if user intention is not to leave the current lane, lane assistance can be provided for automatically providing warning and correcting of the moving direction of the vehicle to keep the vehicle remained in the lane, see at least [0014]-[0015]).
Zhu does not explicitly disclose:
an autonomous driving intention
activate the preventive safety function in response to satisfaction of a second operating condition that is more severe than the first operating condition, when the autonomous driving device has any of the intentions
Although Zhu does not explicitly disclose that the intention is from an autonomous driving device, the autonomous vehicle of Zhu is controlled using a control system 111 and can be driven fully autonomously, manually, or in a partial autonomous mode (see at least [0018]-[0019] and [0023]). Therefore, the activation of a turn signal by a user is still a signal from the autonomous vehicle because the signals are being activated and interpreted within the autonomous vehicle system. Furthermore, the activation of a turn signal could be interpreted as a manual activity. The courts have held that broadly providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 III).
However, You teaches:
activate the preventive safety function in response to satisfaction of a second operating condition that is more severe than the first operating condition, when the autonomous driving device has any of the intentions (when driver indicates an intention to change lanes by turning on a turn signal and moves over the lane to change lanes, Lane-Changing Assistance System (LCAS) performs control of steering device to prevent the lane change if there is a risk of collision with another vehicle being driven in the lane to which host vehicle moves to change lanes, see at least [0004]-[0005]) *Examiner sets forth a “second operating condition” would be the risk of collision
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu by adding the lane-changing assistance system taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for preventing a collision with another vehicle and warning of danger when a lane is changed” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above and Zhu further discloses:
the control for the preventive safety is to control steering of the vehicle to suppress lane departure of the vehicle (correction action to prevent ADV from drifting further away from the center line of the lane, see at least [0044]), and
Zhu does not explicitly disclose:
an intention of steering for lane change
However, You teaches:
the intention of the autonomous driving device to perform the vehicle control causing the satisfaction of the first operating condition is an intention of steering for lane change (determine driver continuously applies a steering force to change lanes, see at least [0106])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistance disclosed by Zhu by adding the steering control device taught by You with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for preventing a collision with another vehicle and warning of danger when a lane is changed” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above and Zhu further discloses:
A vehicle (autonomous vehicle 101, see at least [0019]) comprising: the preventive safety device according to claim 1 (autonomous vehicle includes vehicle control system 110, perception and planning system 110, etc., see at least [0019]); and an interface for receiving an input of the driving signal from the autonomous driving device (components 110-115 are communicatively coupled to each other via an interconnect, a bus, a network, or a combination thereof, see at least [0020]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of You as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0239265 A1; hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhu and You teaches the elements above
the intention of the autonomous driving device to perform the vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition is an intention of steering or deceleration for avoiding an obstacle (if there is an object in front of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle likely intends to change lanes, see at least [0016]) *Examiner sets forth a lane change requires steering
The combination of Zhu and You does not teach:
the control for the preventive safety is to decelerate the vehicle to avoid collision of the vehicle
However, Kato teaches:
the control for the preventive safety is to decelerate the vehicle to avoid collision of the vehicle (perform automatic braking intervention to stop vehicle in front of obstacle, see at least [0058])
the intention of the autonomous driving device to perform the vehicle control to eliminate the satisfaction of the first operating condition is an intention of steering or deceleration for avoiding an obstacle (determine whether driver has depressed brake pedal, see at least [0047]; warning braking control is executed when driver does not perform operation such as steering or braking, see at least [0037])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistant system of an autonomous driving vehicle disclosed by Zhu and the steering control device taught by You by adding the braking support apparatus taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide a vehicle driving support apparatus that effectively performs a collision prevention control, while giving priority to an intention of the driver” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhu, You, and Kato teaches the elements above but Zhu and You do not teach:
the first operating condition is that a collision margin time of the vehicle is smaller than a first threshold value, the second operating condition is that the collision margin time is smaller than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value
However, Kato teaches:
the first operating condition is that a collision margin time of the vehicle is smaller than a first threshold value (examine whether or not time to collision TTC is shorter than or equal to threshold T0 (for example, 2 seconds) to determine a possibility of a collision, see at least [0044], [0046], and Fig. 3), the second operating condition is that the collision margin time is smaller than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is smaller than the first threshold value (determine whether TTC is shorter than threshold T2 (for example 1 second) to perform strong automatic braking intervention, see at least [0058] and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lane assistant system of an autonomous driving vehicle disclosed by Zhu and the steering control device taught by You by adding the braking support apparatus taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide a vehicle driving support apparatus that effectively performs a collision prevention control, while giving priority to an intention of the driver” (see [0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doerr et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0097570 A1) teaches a method and device for triggering an automatic emergency braking process if a driver does not depress a brake pedal in response to an alarm signal.
Okita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0022317 A1) teaches travel supporting control system for stopping a traveling-lane keeping control based on a driver intention detecting unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662