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 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 17, and 19 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 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 Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “actuating unit” in claims 11-15 and 17-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “actuating unit” in claims 11-15 and 17-20 uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Actuating unit: [0056-0057, 0060] The actuating units 108 and 110 may be equipped with at least one module implementing a driving operation and operate at least one driving operation such as a driving force, a braking force, and steering. The actuating units 108 and 110 may include, for example, the driving force generation unit 108 and the wheel unit 110. When the vehicle 100 is based on electric energy, the driving force generation unit 108 may be equipped with a motor unit, a component for a brake system, a component for steering, and the like. For a fossil fuel-powered vehicle 100, the driving force generation unit 108 may be equipped with an internal combustion engine instead of a motor unit. In the present disclosure, the vehicle 100 may be electric, and a motor unit is described as an example module generating a driving force in the driving force generation unit 108. The wheel unit 110 may be equipped with wheels, a wheel brake module, and a wheel steering module. The wheel brake module may be a module that delivers a braking force at a deceleration control request of a processor 124 to the wheels and decelerates the wheels. The wheel steering module may receive a mechanical operation generated by a component for steering in the driving force generation unit 108 in response to a turn request of the processor 124 and operate the wheels to turn at a predetermined angle.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 2019/0332112 A1) in view of Takahashi (EP 2 712 780 B1, a full copy is attached and being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses a driving control method based on boarding congestion (Figs. 1-2, [0023] – method 100 of operating the system 10), the method comprising: generating congestion information based on passenger number information of a vehicle (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0026-0027, 0030, 0032-0033] – determine passenger count… set parameter 40); constructing driving limit information based on the congestion information and driving state information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - parameter 40 helps to set limits on these actions (accelerating, braking, cornering)… the value of the parameter 40 used to control or limit certain operational characteristics); and setting driving control information applied to operating the vehicle based on the driving limit information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 and in accordance with the parameter 40… the value of the parameter 40 used to control or limit certain operational characteristics), wherein the vehicle is controlled using autonomous driving set by driving requirement information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14), the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate, the driving state information is a current velocity on the path, the driving limit information is generated based on the congestion information, the driving requirement information, and the driving state information, the driving limit information includes a message for indicating i) whether or not a restriction is applied, ii) a permissible velocity, and iii) a permissible velocity change rate, and the message indicates whether or not the permissible velocity and the permissible velocity change rate are set by restricting the driving requirement information by the congestion information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a curve-radius and/or a camber of the given curve, which may be indicated on a digital-map used by the controller 32 for navigation. For example, the cornering-speed 44 may be characterized as the lateral-acceleration that a passenger experiences, where the empty-value is 0.5 g of lateral-acceleration, and the occupied-value is 0.1 g of lateral acceleration. Alternatively, the cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a posted recommended speed for the corner in question.).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate expected on a forward path of the vehicle.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate expected on a forward path of the vehicle ([0011, 0052] - The method for controlling the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle based on lateral jerk is activated only under circumstances in which the control can be assumed to be required by activating control of the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle on the basis of the determined lateral acceleration and lateral jerk, when the acceleration target value or the lateral jerk exceeds a threshold value, in particular in case an absolute value of the acceleration target value or an absolute value of the lateral jerk exceeds a positive threshold value. The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Takahashi into the invention of Wei with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to provide more predictive anticipatory control over the vehicle’s operation. This modification would increase comfort and safety during driving (Takahashi – [0012, 0014]), and would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Wei discloses wherein the congestion information is generated as a congestion level based on the number of boarding passengers in the passenger number information and a boarded area of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0026-0027, 0030-0033] - determine passenger count… determining whether at least one passenger is sitting… determining whether at least one passenger is standing, if so determining whether they are gripping a hand-hold… set the parameter).
Regarding claim 7, Wei discloses wherein the permissible velocity and the permissible velocity change rate are determined based on a velocity limit and a rate of change of the velocity limit over time, respectively, when a value of a driving velocity change rate or a value of a turn velocity change rate, which are predicted based on the driving state information and the driving requirement information, exceeds a value of respective velocity limit change rate defined by the congestion information, and the permissible velocity and the permissible velocity change rate are determined based on the driving requirement information, when the value of the driving velocity change rate or the value of the turn velocity change rate are equal to or less than the value of the respective velocity limit change rate (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a curve-radius and/or a camber of the given curve, which may be indicated on a digital-map used by the controller 32 for navigation. For example, the cornering-speed 44 may be characterized as the lateral-acceleration that a passenger experiences, where the empty-value is 0.5 g of lateral-acceleration, and the occupied-value is 0.1 g of lateral acceleration. Alternatively, the cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a posted recommended speed for the corner in question).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose when an absolute value of a driving velocity change rate or an absolute value of a turn velocity change rate, which are predicted based on the driving state information and the driving requirement information, exceeds the absolute value of the velocity limit change rate.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: when an absolute value of a driving velocity change rate or an absolute value of a turn velocity change rate, which are predicted based on the driving state information and the driving requirement information, exceeds the absolute value of the velocity limit change rate ([0011, 0052] - The method for controlling the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle based on lateral jerk is activated only under circumstances in which the control can be assumed to be required by activating control of the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle on the basis of the determined lateral acceleration and lateral jerk, when the acceleration target value or the lateral jerk exceeds a threshold value, in particular in case an absolute value of the acceleration target value or an absolute value of the lateral jerk exceeds a positive threshold value. The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle.), and the permissible velocity and the permissible velocity change rate are determined based on the driving requirement information, when the absolute value of the driving velocity change rate or the absolute value of the turn velocity change rate are equal to or less than the absolute value of the respective velocity limit change rate ([0015-0016, 0038] - deactivating control of a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle on the basis of the determined lateral acceleration and lateral jerk, when the acceleration target value or the lateral jerk does not exceed the threshold value, in particular, when the acceleration target value or the lateral jerk falls below the threshold value).
The motivation to combine Wei and Takahashi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Wei discloses wherein the respective velocity limit change rate is a velocity limit change rate of a longitudinal direction and a velocity limit change rate of a transverse direction that are set by the congestion information, the driving velocity change rate and the velocity limit change rate of the longitudinal direction are velocity rates according to a driving direction of the vehicle, and the turn velocity change rate and the velocity limit change rate of the transverse direction are velocity rates occurring during a turn of the vehicle along a curve (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a curve-radius and/or a camber of the given curve, which may be indicated on a digital-map used by the controller 32 for navigation. For example, the cornering-speed 44 may be characterized as the lateral-acceleration that a passenger experiences, where the empty-value is 0.5 g of lateral-acceleration, and the occupied-value is 0.1 g of lateral acceleration. Alternatively, the cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a posted recommended speed for the corner in question).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose a turn of the vehicle along a curve of the forward path.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a turn of the vehicle along a curve of the forward path ([0011, 0052] - The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle).
The motivation to combine Wei and Takahashi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Wei discloses wherein the driving control information has a driving operation plan of at least one of driving, braking, or steering for the actuating according to a driving control command including a driving plan related to a set velocity and a set velocity change rate established on the path based on the driving limit information (Figs. 1-2, [0013-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… accelerating, braking, cornering).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the path is the forward path.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the path is the forward path ([0011, 0052] - The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle).
The motivation to combine Wei and Takahashi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Wei discloses wherein the vehicle is controlled using autonomous driving established by driving requirement information, and wherein the driving control command includes a driving plan that the set velocity change rate is applied to driving of the vehicle before entry into the path to implement the set velocity change rate on the path when the driving plan according to the driving limit information is different from an initial control plan on the path according to the driving requirement information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a curve-radius and/or a camber of the given curve, which may be indicated on a digital-map used by the controller 32 for navigation).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the path is a forward path.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the path is a forward path ([0011, 0052] - The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle).
The motivation to combine Wei and Takahashi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Wei discloses a vehicle implementing driving control based on boarding congestion (Figs. 1-2, [0023] – method 100 of operating the system 10), the vehicle comprising: an actuating unit generating a driving operation (Fig. 1, [0013] – vehicle-controls 26 that allow for or enable operation of the host-vehicle 12… means to control the steering, accelerator, and brakes); a memory storing at least one instruction for the vehicle (Fig. 1, [0014] – memory 36 storing one or more routines); and a processor executing the at least one instruction stored in the memory, wherein the processor is configured to (Fig. 1, [0014] – processor 34 executes the one or more routines) generate congestion information based on passenger number information of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2, [0024, 0026-0027, 0030, 0032-0033] – determine passenger count… set parameter 40), construct driving limit information based on the congestion information and driving state information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - parameter 40 helps to set limits on these actions (accelerating, braking, cornering)… the value of the parameter 40 used to control or limit certain operational characteristics), and set driving control information applied to the actuating unit based on the driving limit information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 and in accordance with the parameter 40… the value of the parameter 40 used to control or limit certain operational characteristics), wherein the vehicle is controlled using autonomous driving set by driving requirement information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14), the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate, the driving state information is a current velocity on the path, the driving limit information is generated based on the congestion information, the driving requirement information, and the driving state information, the driving limit information includes a message for indicating i) whether or not a restriction is applied, ii) a permissible velocity, and iii_ a permissible velocity change rate, and the message indicates whether or not the permissible velocity and the permissible velocity change rate are set by restricting the driving requirement information by the congestion information (Figs. 1-2, [0015-0018] - controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 in accordance with the parameter 40… the parameter 40 includes but is not limited to acceleration-rate 42 (e.g., longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e., lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed… the parameter 40 is used to control or limit operational characteristics… cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a curve-radius and/or a camber of the given curve, which may be indicated on a digital-map used by the controller 32 for navigation. For example, the cornering-speed 44 may be characterized as the lateral-acceleration that a passenger experiences, where the empty-value is 0.5 g of lateral-acceleration, and the occupied-value is 0.1 g of lateral acceleration. Alternatively, the cornering-speed 44 may be determined based on a posted recommended speed for the corner in question.).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate expected on a forward path of the vehicle.
Takahashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the driving requirement information includes a required velocity and a required velocity change rate expected on a forward path of the vehicle ([0011, 0052] - The method for controlling the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle based on lateral jerk is activated only under circumstances in which the control can be assumed to be required by activating control of the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle on the basis of the determined lateral acceleration and lateral jerk, when the acceleration target value or the lateral jerk exceeds a threshold value, in particular in case an absolute value of the acceleration target value or an absolute value of the lateral jerk exceeds a positive threshold value. The method is characterized by detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle in the longitudinal direction, and by varying the threshold value on the basis of the result of the detecting whether a curve of the road is ahead of the vehicle.).
The motivation to combine Wei and Takahashi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5 and 7-10, and it has been determined that claims 15 and 17-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 5 and 7-10; therefore, claims 15 and 17-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5 and 7-10.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Takahashi and Lu (US 2019/0220729 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wei discloses wherein the vehicle is configured to accommodate sitting or standing passengers ([0020] – host-vehicle 12 is configured so the passengers 22 can sit or stand), and wherein the passenger number information is generated based on passenger number data among multiple pieces of estimated passenger number data estimating a number of passengers in the vehicle (Figs. 1-2, [0024-0027] – The passenger-detector 18 may include a camera so image analysis can be used to determine the passenger-count 20. Alternatively, weight-sensors and/or proximity-sensors can be located at the door to the host-vehicle 12 to keep a tally of people entering and exiting the host-vehicle 12. It is also contemplated that the seats 38 in the host-vehicle 12 could be equipped with weight-sensors and/or proximity-sensors used to determine when a seat is occupied… In addition to the suggestions above regarding keeping track of the number of passengers, additional sensor such as infrared sensors may be used to determine that the host-vehicle 12 is indeed empty.).
Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the passenger number information is generated based on maximum passenger number data among multiple pieces of estimated passenger number data.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the occupant number information is generated based on maximum occupant number data among multiple pieces of estimated occupant number data ([0064] - In another implementation, the processing circuitry 216 processes the generated RSSI data utilizing a heuristic algorithm to determine an occupancy count in the area 105. The processing circuitry applies the heuristic algorithm to the indicator data of the RF signals from each of the plurality of receivers to compute an output metric value for each of a plurality of probable number of occupants in the area. The processing circuitry 216 also compares each one of the plurality of computed output metric values with another one of the plurality of computed output metric values to identify one of the plurality of computed output metric values as having a largest value and indicates that the probable number of occupants associated with the computed metric value having the largest value is the current estimate of the occupancy count in the area 105.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Wei with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that if one means of counting identifies no passengers while another means of counting identifies one or more passengers, it would be better to assume that there is at least one passenger and to drive accordingly. If there was indeed one or more passengers it would be unsafe to drive as if there were none. This improves safety and comfort for potential passengers and avoids dangerous situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to utilize the highest count of the different ways of counting the passengers as the passenger count and yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Wei discloses wherein the passenger number data includes: sitting count information indicating a number of sitting passengers; and image count information indicating a number of boarded passengers identified in an image inside the vehicle ([0012] - passenger-detector 18 may include, but is not limited to, one or more instances of a camera and/or an ultrasonic-transducer oriented to have a field-of-view that covers all or part of the vehicle-interior 24, a seat-detector such as a weight-detector or an electrode installed in each seat 38 in the vehicle-interior 24, which may be configured or used to detect an occupant-presence and/or an occupant-weight of whatever occupies in each seat 38, or any combination thereof, as will be recognized by those in the vehicle occupant/passenger detection arts).
In the same embodiment, Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the passenger number data includes: board/unboard count information indicating a number of passengers boarding the vehicle based on counts of boarding/unboarding passengers.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Wei does disclose wherein the passenger number data includes: board/unboard count information indicating a number of passengers boarding the vehicle based on counts of boarding/unboarding passengers ([0024] - weight-sensors and/or proximity-sensors can be located at the door to the host-vehicle 12 to keep a tally of people entering and exiting the host-vehicle 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the use of sitting count information, image count information, and board/unboard count information as taught by Wei into a single embodiment with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve the accuracy of the passenger count information so that the passengers can be comfortably and safely transported (Wei – [0016, 0034]). Furthermore, since Wei already contemplates using combination of passenger-detectors to determine the passenger count (Wei – [0012]), it would have been obvious to take into account another type of passenger-detector to improve the accuracy and verify that the passenger count is correct. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to combine these passenger-detectors into a single embodiment to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 12-13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 2-3, and it has been determined that claims 12-13 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 2-3; therefore, claims 12-13 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 2-3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Takahashi, Lu, and Cui (CN 110473399 A, a machine translation is attached and being relied upon).
Regarding claim 4, Wei does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the passenger number information is generated by applying an adjustment factor according to a boarding weight to the maximum passenger number data.
Cui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the passenger number information is generated by applying an adjustment factor according to a boarding weight to the maximum passenger number data ([0075] - The number of passengers boarding a bus is counted as one at a time… Passenger weight is divided into tiers of less than 75 catties, 75 catties to 180 catties, and over 180 catties. If a passenger carrying a child weighs more than 180 catties, they are counted as two passengers. If a passenger weighs more than 180 catties without a child, they are also counted as two passengers. Because the state of the smart bus is determined by the density value, even if a single person weighs more than 180 kg, they are given a higher weight.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Cui into the invention of Wei with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately determine the density of the bus as being idle, crowded, or full based on the count and weight information (Cui – [0075, 0091]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply an adjustment factor according to weight, since the use of adjustment factors is well known in order to properly account for all passengers
Regarding claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that Wei does not teach or disclose calculating congestion information and setting a velocity limit or velocity change rate limit according to the calculated congestion information, Wei merely discloses a technique for switching the mode of a vehicle according to the passenger count. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0015-0016] of Wei read “The controller 32 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in the autonomous-mode 14 and in accordance with a parameter 40. As used herein, the parameter 40 refers to a dynamic characteristic that can affect the comfort of one or more of the passengers 22 being transported by the host-vehicle 12. Non-limiting examples of the parameter 40 include, but are not limited to an acceleration-rate 42 (e.g. longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration), a cornering-speed 44 (i.e. lateral acceleration), and a maximum speed. That is, aggressive acceleration from a stop, aggressive braking, traveling too fast around corners or curves, and sudden or frequent lane changes can make the transportation experience unpleasant for the passengers 22. The parameter 40 helps to set limits on these actions (accelerating, braking, cornering) so that the transportation experience for the passengers 22 is pleasant, or at least as pleasant as possible. The controller 32 is configured to set the parameter 40 to an empty-value 46 when the passenger-count 20 is equal to zero, i.e. the host-vehicle 12 is empty of passengers, and the parameter 40 is set to an occupied-value 48 that is different from the empty-value 46 when the passenger-count 20 is greater than zero, i.e. there is at least one passenger is present in the host-vehicle 12. That is, the value of the parameter 40 used to control or limit certain operational characteristics such as longitudinal acceleration while the host-vehicle 12 is empty is different from the value of the parameter 40 used while there are one or more instances of the passengers 22 in the host-vehicle 12.”
Applicant argues on page 10 that Takahashi does not teach or disclose a control structure similar to the present application, in which congestion information, driving state information, and driving requirement information are considered together to determine a permissible velocity and a permissible velocity change rate for the vehicles. Takahashi involves a static setting that merely changes threshold values according to the road shape. In contrast, the present application involves a dynamic control method that updates driving limit information in real time by determining velocity limit and velocity change rate limit values, which are set according to the boarding congestion information, and comparing them with driving requirement information and driving state information, thereby improving both vehicle control stability and responsiveness. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner relies upon Wei to teach all of the limitations except that the required velocity and the required velocity change rate are determined based on a forward path of the vehicle. Takahashi is used to demonstrate that velocity and velocity change rate can be based on a forward path of the vehicle rather than the current location. Therefore, the examiner relies upon the combination of Wei and Takahashi to teach the limitations argued by the Applicant. The motivation of doing so is to provide more predictive anticipatory control over the vehicle’s operation. This modification would increase comfort and safety during driving (Takahashi – [0012, 0014]).
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 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