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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-12, & 14-15 of U.S. Application No. 18/522875 filed on 09/04/2025 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed09/04/2025. Claims 1, 6-9, & 14-15 are presently amended, and Claims 5 & 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-12, & 14-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) 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. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2024/0123822A1 (“Kim 822”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-12, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015205648A (“Komine”), in view of US 2020/0247357A1 (“Wengreen”), in view of US 2024/0123822A1 (“Kim 822”).
As per claim 1 Komine
A method for controlling an autonomous vehicle comprising a processor configured to control a sensor (see at least Komine, para. [0001]: a collision avoidance assistance device that provides driving assistance for avoiding a collision with an object while the vehicle is traveling.), the method comprising:
detecting, by the processor, an object located in front of the autonomous vehicle based on driving information sensed by the sensor (see at least Komine, para. [0019]: The collision avoidance assistance device according to the present embodiment detects an object existing in front of the own vehicle using a millimeter wave radar, and if detected, there is a possibility of a collision with the object, and the collision with the object is detected.);
determining, by the processor, whether an occupant of the autonomous vehicle wears a seat belt when the detected object enters a preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0031-0032]: Then, in the collision determination unit 32, TTC [Time To Collision], which is a collision margin time (or collision prediction time) based on the relative distance between the host vehicle and the object and the relative velocity, for each object of collision determination. The relative distance / relative velocity) is calculated, and it is determined whether TTC is less than or equal to a threshold. The threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not there is a possibility of a collision, and is preset by an actual vehicle experiment or the like….& para. [0037]: When the collision determination unit 32 determines that the own vehicle may collide with an object, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 detects the seating of the occupant based on the seating information from the seating sensor 12 for each seat. Identify the seat in which the passenger is present (hereinafter referred to as the seated seat). Since the vehicle is a bus, it may be considered that the occupant is standing and moving. Therefore, when the seating of the occupant has been detected even once, the seating is taken. Then, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 determines whether or not the seat belt is worn on the seated seat, based on the wearing information from the seat belt sensor 13 for each seat.); and
performing, by the processor, a control to variably activate a safe mode based on a determination result of whether the occupant wears the seat belt when the detected object enters the preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1….In particular, the decelerating acceleration D2b is set in consideration of the case where the occupant of the vehicle does not wear a seat belt. Also, at the beginning of each deceleration acceleration map M1, M2, the start timing to activate the weak brake for alarm (increase to deceleration D1a, D2a), then activate the strong brake for collision avoidance (increase to deceleration D1b, D2b The start timing to be made) is also appropriately set by an actual vehicle experiment or the like. The decelerating acceleration maps M1 and M2 shown in FIG. 2 are an example, and maps of other various configurations can be applied.).
detecting, by the processor, whether the safe mode is activated upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0047]: When the brake control ECU 20 receives the decelerating acceleration map M2, the brake control ECU 20 performs decelerating control to generate decelerating acceleration corresponding to each time until the collision shown in the decelerating acceleration map M2, and operates the brake (S6).).
However Komine does not explicitly disclose
determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated,
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time.
Wengreen teaches
determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated (see at least Wengreen, para. [0258-0259]: First program instructions 27 can be configured to maintain a greater minimum distance (and/or a greater average distance) from the first self-driving vehicle 5a to the second vehicle 48 in the second mode than in the first mode. The second mode can be configured to keep the first self-driving vehicle 5a farther away from other vehicles 48 than the first mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated of Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to encourage seat belt use (see at least Wengreen, para. [0007]).
Kim 822 teaches
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time (see at least Kim 822, para. [0130-0135]: For instance, in some implementations, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for a first threshold period of time. As an example, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for 1 second…Further, some implementations, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within a second threshold period of time after the generation of the notification. As an example, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within 1.5 seconds after the generation of the notification….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time of Kim 822, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce a risk of the autonomous vehicle being involved in a traffic conflict and/or reduce the risk that the passenger being injured. (see at least Kim 822, para. [0023]).
As per claim 2 Komine discloses
wherein performing the control comprising operating a collision risk signal faster than a collision risk signal in a normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1).
As per claim 3 Komine discloses
wherein the collision risk signal comprises at least one of a collision risk early warning or a collision risk early braking, and wherein performing the control further comprises operating the collision risk early warning faster than a collision risk warning in the normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0047]: When the brake control ECU 20 receives the decelerating acceleration map M2, the brake control ECU 20 performs decelerating control to generate decelerating acceleration corresponding to each time until the collision shown in the decelerating acceleration map M2, and operates the brake (S6). Due to the actuation of the brake, a small decelerating acceleration for warning is first generated in the host vehicle at a timing earlier than normal, and then a decelerating acceleration smaller than normal for collision avoidance is generated.).
As per claim 4 Komine discloses
wherein performing the control further comprises operating the collision risk early braking faster than a collision risk braking in the normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1).
As per claim 6 Komine does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: re-warning about not wearing the seat belt under control of the processor.
Wengreen teaches
further comprising: re-warning about not wearing the seat belt under control of the processor in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state (see at least Wengreen, para. [0292]: The object detection system 7a can be used to monitor traffic conditions (e.g., if many vehicles48 are located near the first self-driving vehicle 5a. A traffic monitor 23 can receive traffic condition data from remote computers (e.g., can receive traffic data from Google). & para. [0304]: In some embodiments, a computer system (e.g., 34, 19, 19a) can comprise program instructions (e.g., 32, 27, 27a) configured to notify the rider to buckle the first seat belt 53, wherein the notifying is at least partially in response to the program instructions analyzing at least one of road conditions, a travel route, and traffic conditions. The program instructions can analyze at least one of road conditions, a travel route, and traffic conditions, and then in response to the analysis, the second program instructions can notify the rider to buckle the first seat belt 53.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is in a driving risk state when the driving risk degree is outside a preset driving risk range; and re-warning about not wearing the seat belt under control of the processor in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state of Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to encourage seat belt use (see at least Wengreen, para. [0007]).
As per claim 8 Komine discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program to direct a processor of an autonomous vehicle to perform acts of (see at least Komine, para. [0001]: a collision avoidance assistance device that provides driving assistance for avoiding a collision with an object while the vehicle is traveling.):
detecting an object located in front of the autonomous vehicle based on driving information sensed by at least one sensor of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Komine, para. [0019]: The collision avoidance assistance device according to the present embodiment detects an object existing in front of the own vehicle using a millimeter wave radar, and if detected, there is a possibility of a collision with the object, and the collision with the object is detected.);
determining whether an occupant of the autonomous vehicle wears a seat belt when the detected object enters a preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0031-0032]: Then, in the collision determination unit 32, TTC [Time To Collision], which is a collision margin time (or collision prediction time) based on the relative distance between the host vehicle and the object and the relative velocity, for each object of collision determination. The relative distance / relative velocity) is calculated, and it is determined whether TTC is less than or equal to a threshold. The threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not there is a possibility of a collision, and is preset by an actual vehicle experiment or the like….& para. [0037]: When the collision determination unit 32 determines that the own vehicle may collide with an object, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 detects the seating of the occupant based on the seating information from the seating sensor 12 for each seat. Identify the seat in which the passenger is present (hereinafter referred to as the seated seat). Since the vehicle is a bus, it may be considered that the occupant is standing and moving. Therefore, when the seating of the occupant has been detected even once, the seating is taken. Then, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 determines whether or not the seat belt is worn on the seated seat, based on the wearing information from the seat belt sensor 13 for each seat.); and
performing a control to variably activate a safe mode based on a determination result of whether the occupant wears the seat belt when the detected object enters the preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1….In particular, the decelerating acceleration D2b is set in consideration of the case where the occupant of the vehicle does not wear a seat belt. Also, at the beginning of each deceleration acceleration map M1, M2, the start timing to activate the weak brake for alarm (increase to deceleration D1a, D2a), then activate the strong brake for collision avoidance (increase to deceleration D1b, D2b The start timing to be made) is also appropriately set by an actual vehicle experiment or the like. The decelerating acceleration maps M1 and M2 shown in FIG. 2 are an example, and maps of other various configurations can be applied.).
detecting, by the processor, whether the safe mode is activated upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0047]: When the brake control ECU 20 receives the decelerating acceleration map M2, the brake control ECU 20 performs decelerating control to generate decelerating acceleration corresponding to each time until the collision shown in the decelerating acceleration map M2, and operates the brake (S6).).
However Komine does not explicitly disclose
determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated,
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time.
Wengreen teaches
determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated (see at least Wengreen, para. [0258-0259]: First program instructions 27 can be configured to maintain a greater minimum distance (and/or a greater average distance) from the first self-driving vehicle 5a to the second vehicle 48 in the second mode than in the first mode. The second mode can be configured to keep the first self-driving vehicle 5a farther away from other vehicles 48 than the first mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of determining, by the processor, a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated of Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to encourage seat belt use (see at least Wengreen, para. [0007]).
Kim 822 teaches
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time (see at least Kim 822, para. [0130-0135]: For instance, in some implementations, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for a first threshold period of time. As an example, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for 1 second…Further, some implementations, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within a second threshold period of time after the generation of the notification. As an example, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within 1.5 seconds after the generation of the notification….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time of Kim 822, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce a risk of the autonomous vehicle being involved in a traffic conflict and/or reduce the risk that the passenger being injured. (see at least Kim 822, para. [0023]).
As per claim 9 Komine discloses
An autonomous vehicle comprising (see at least Komine, para. [0001]: a collision avoidance assistance device that provides driving assistance for avoiding a collision with an object while the vehicle is traveling.):
a sensor (see at least Komine, para. [0019]: The collision avoidance assistance device according to the present embodiment detects an object existing in front of the own vehicle using a millimeter wave radar,); and
a processor configured to control the sensor, wherein the processor is configured to (see at least Komine, para. [0019]: The collision avoidance assistance device according to the present embodiment detects an object existing in front of the own vehicle using a millimeter wave radar,):
detect an object located in front of the autonomous vehicle based on driving information sensed by the sensor (see at least Komine, para. [0019]: The collision avoidance assistance device according to the present embodiment detects an object existing in front of the own vehicle using a millimeter wave radar, and if detected, there is a possibility of a collision with the object, and the collision with the object is detected.);
determine whether an occupant in the autonomous vehicle wears a seat belt when the detected object enters a preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0031-0032]: Then, in the collision determination unit 32, TTC [Time To Collision], which is a collision margin time (or collision prediction time) based on the relative distance between the host vehicle and the object and the relative velocity, for each object of collision determination. The relative distance / relative velocity) is calculated, and it is determined whether TTC is less than or equal to a threshold. The threshold is a threshold for determining whether or not there is a possibility of a collision, and is preset by an actual vehicle experiment or the like….& para. [0037]: When the collision determination unit 32 determines that the own vehicle may collide with an object, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 detects the seating of the occupant based on the seating information from the seating sensor 12 for each seat. Identify the seat in which the passenger is present (hereinafter referred to as the seated seat). Since the vehicle is a bus, it may be considered that the occupant is standing and moving. Therefore, when the seating of the occupant has been detected even once, the seating is taken. Then, the deceleration acceleration map selection unit 33 determines whether or not the seat belt is worn on the seated seat, based on the wearing information from the seat belt sensor 13 for each seat.); and
perform a control operation to variably activate a safe mode based on a determination result of whether the occupant wears the seat belt when the detected object enters the preset safety distance range (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1….In particular, the decelerating acceleration D2b is set in consideration of the case where the occupant of the vehicle does not wear a seat belt. Also, at the beginning of each deceleration acceleration map M1, M2, the start timing to activate the weak brake for alarm (increase to deceleration D1a, D2a), then activate the strong brake for collision avoidance (increase to deceleration D1b, D2b The start timing to be made) is also appropriately set by an actual vehicle experiment or the like. The decelerating acceleration maps M1 and M2 shown in FIG. 2 are an example, and maps of other various configurations can be applied.).
detect whether the safe mode is activated upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0047]: When the brake control ECU 20 receives the decelerating acceleration map M2, the brake control ECU 20 performs decelerating control to generate decelerating acceleration corresponding to each time until the collision shown in the decelerating acceleration map M2, and operates the brake (S6).).
However Komine does not explicitly disclose
determine a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated,
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time.
Wengreen teaches
determine a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated (see at least Wengreen, para. [0258-0259]: First program instructions 27 can be configured to maintain a greater minimum distance (and/or a greater average distance) from the first self-driving vehicle 5a to the second vehicle 48 in the second mode than in the first mode. The second mode can be configured to keep the first self-driving vehicle 5a farther away from other vehicles 48 than the first mode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of determine a driving risk degree when the safe mode is activated of Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to encourage seat belt use (see at least Wengreen, para. [0007]).
Kim 822 teaches
wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time (see at least Kim 822, para. [0130-0135]: For instance, in some implementations, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for a first threshold period of time. As an example, the autonomous vehicle generates a notification upon determining that a passenger and/or an object entered the restricted zone and has remained in the restricted zone for 1 second…Further, some implementations, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within a second threshold period of time after the generation of the notification. As an example, the autonomous vehicle begins decreasing the speed of the autonomous vehicle upon determining that the passenger and/or the object has not exited the restricted zone within 1.5 seconds after the generation of the notification….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of wherein the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in a driving risk state in case that warnings cumulatively occur for first predetermined times within a same driving cycle or in case that warnings occur for second predetermined times in succession within a predetermined time of Kim 822, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce a risk of the autonomous vehicle being involved in a traffic conflict and/or reduce the risk that the passenger being injured. (see at least Kim 822, para. [0023]).
As per claim 10 Komine discloses
wherein the processor is further configured to perform a control operation to operate a collision risk signal faster than a collision risk signal in a normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1).
As per claim 11 Komine discloses
wherein: the collision risk signal comprises at least one of a collision risk early warning or a collision risk early braking; and the process is further configured to perform a control operation to operate the collision risk early warning faster than collision risk warning in the normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0047]: When the brake control ECU 20 receives the decelerating acceleration map M2, the brake control ECU 20 performs decelerating control to generate decelerating acceleration corresponding to each time until the collision shown in the decelerating acceleration map M2, and operates the brake (S6). Due to the actuation of the brake, a small decelerating acceleration for warning is first generated in the host vehicle at a timing earlier than normal, and then a decelerating acceleration smaller than normal for collision avoidance is generated.).
As per claim 12 Komine discloses
wherein the processor is further configured to perform a control operation to operate the collision risk early braking faster than collision risk braking in the normal mode upon determining that the occupant is not wearing the seat belt (see at least Komine, para. [0035-0036]: In particular, in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M2 for reduction, since the decelerating acceleration D2b for collision avoidance is smaller than the decelerating acceleration D1b of the decelerating acceleration map M1, the vehicle speed of the vehicle is lower than in the case of the decelerating acceleration map M1 for normal use. The degree is slower and the braking distance is longer. In order to compensate for this, the reduction acceleration map M2 for reduction has an earlier start timing for generating the deceleration acceleration in order to start the braking operation by the deceleration control earlier than the normal deceleration acceleration map M1).
As per claim 14 Komine does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is further configured to: perform a control operation to re-warn about not wearing the seat belt.
Wengreen teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to: perform a control operation to re-warn about not wearing the seat belt in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state (see at least Wengreen, para. [0292]: The object detection system 7a can be used to monitor traffic conditions (e.g., if many vehicles48 are located near the first self-driving vehicle 5a. A traffic monitor 23 can receive traffic condition data from remote computers (e.g., can receive traffic data from Google). & para. [0304]: In some embodiments, a computer system (e.g., 34, 19, 19a) can comprise program instructions (e.g., 32, 27, 27a) configured to notify the rider to buckle the first seat belt 53, wherein the notifying is at least partially in response to the program instructions analyzing at least one of road conditions, a travel route, and traffic conditions. The program instructions can analyze at least one of road conditions, a travel route, and traffic conditions, and then in response to the analysis, the second program instructions can notify the rider to buckle the first seat belt 53.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of perform a control operation to re-warn about not wearing the seat belt in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state of Wengreen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to encourage seat belt use (see at least Wengreen, para. [0007]).
Claim(s) 7 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine, in view of Wengreen, in view of Kim 822, in view of US 2017/0361796A1 (“Kim 796”).
As per claim 7 Komine does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: performing, by the processor, a control to operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition in case that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state.
Kim 796 teaches
further comprising: performing, by the processor, a control to operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state (see at least Kim 796, para. [0041]: When the calculated speed of the vehicle and the distance to the preceding vehicle are equal to or greater than a threshold value with reference to a predetermined reference value or value determined from a look-up table (LUT), the collision possibility determiner 120 may determine that there is a possibility of a collision with the preceding vehicle in operation S11. & para. [0053]: That is, if the AEB is applied in a state in which a seat belt of a fellow passenger is not fastened, a severity of an injury may increase in the occurrence of collision. Thus, in order to minimize injury to the passenger according to a type thereof, AEB full braking is variably controlled, the AEB system may not be operated (e.g., when 50% or more of passengers at the passenger seat does not fasten the seat belt), and DAB/PAB deployment (high air pressure/low air pressure deployment or deployment of a first-step/second-step inflator of a dual-stage airbag) is variably controlled.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of performing, by the processor, a control to operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition of Kim 796, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for passenger behavior to be minimized to reduce an injury to a passenger in a vehicle (see at least Kim 796, para. [0007]).
As per claim 15 Komine does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is further configured to:
operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state.
Kim 796 teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to:
operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state (see at least Kim 796, para. [0041]: When the calculated speed of the vehicle and the distance to the preceding vehicle are equal to or greater than a threshold value with reference to a predetermined reference value or value determined from a look-up table (LUT), the collision possibility determiner 120 may determine that there is a possibility of a collision with the preceding vehicle in operation S11. & para. [0053]: That is, if the AEB is applied in a state in which a seat belt of a fellow passenger is not fastened, a severity of an injury may increase in the occurrence of collision. Thus, in order to minimize injury to the passenger according to a type thereof, AEB full braking is variably controlled, the AEB system may not be operated (e.g., when 50% or more of passengers at the passenger seat does not fasten the seat belt), and DAB/PAB deployment (high air pressure/low air pressure deployment or deployment of a first-step/second-step inflator of a dual-stage airbag) is variably controlled.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Komine to incorporate the teaching of operate an airbag in an airbag operation condition more relaxed than a previous airbag operation condition in case that the processor determines that the autonomous vehicle is in the driving risk state of Kim 796, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for passenger behavior to be minimized to reduce an injury to a passenger in a vehicle (see at least Kim 796, para. [0007]).
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668