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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 11-12, 14-21 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application FR2104998 filed on 05/11/2021.
Claims 11-13, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Oguro (US20200114916, from IDS) in view of Tokimasa et al. (US20160009283).
Regarding claim 11, Oguro teaches a method for managing longitudinal speed of an autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle traveling on a roadway comprising a stop sign located in front of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle being equipped with a first detector having a first range and with a second detector having a second range, the first range being greater than the second range, the method comprising ([0070]-[0083] disclosing a first detector being a GPS detecting a position of the vehicle and a distance to the stop position based on a map data) and the autonomous vehicle is also equipped with a camera [0040], it is interpreted that a camera has a shorter range than a map based gps distance detection which can calculate the distance based on the location of the vehicle from any distance far away from a feature on the map).
Detecting, at a first time, a first position of the stop sign with the detector, and in response to determining that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance from the first position of the stop sign detected by the first detector, implementing first slowdown logic to slow down the autonomous vehicle ([0070]-[0083] discloses when the distance to the stop line is detected by the detector to be more than a threshold distance, the deceleration is a preliminary deceleration “first slow down logic” due to the reliability of the distance being low), and
Detecting at a second time after the first time, a second position of the stop sign with the second detector and implementing second slowdown logic to slow down the autonomous vehicle based on determined current distance of the vehicle from the second position of the stop sign detected by the second detector ([0070]-[0081] further disclosing the transitioning to a normal deceleration based on a detected distance being less than the threshold indicating high reliability of the distance information),
wherein the first and second slowdown logic implement jerks with an absolute value of less than a first limit threshold ([0125] disclosing a limit on the jerk).
Wherein the second slowdown logic conrols stoppage of the autonomous vehicle with an accuracy of several tens of centimeters relative to the detected second position of stop sign ([0070]-[0081] disclosing the normal deceleration is to stop the vehicle at the stop line for the stop sign).
Oguro does not teach the detection is accomplished at the first time via the first detector and the second time via the second detector.
Tokimasa teaches the detection is accomplished at the first time via the first detector and the second time via the second detector ([0128] disclosing distance to objects being measured by a camera “first detector” that has a short range when an object is close, and to be measured via a long range sensor “second detector” when the object is far).
Oguro teaches different decelerations based on distance to a stop line, thus The combination of Tokimasa with Oguro teaching the first distance via a first sensor and the control based on that distance, and a second distance via a second sensor and the control based on the second distance, is obvious yielding predictable results in order to improve the reliability of the measured distance and adaptively determine the distance from far distance from an object using a long range detector and switching to a camera that can detect the distance information of a short range that is difficult to a radar to obtain [0128].
Regarding claim 12, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first and second slowdown logic implement negative accelerations greater than a second limit threshold (Oguro [0081] disclosing the normal deceleration decelerates the vehicle with finer increments to stop the vehicle at the detected stop location).
Regarding claim 13, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa further teaches the managing method as claimed in claim 11,Specifically, Oguro teaches wherein the first detecting comprises determining, at a first time, an approximate first position of the stop sign ([0071]-[0088] and figure 5 disclosing the reliability of the stop position indicative of a stop sign obtained from the apparatus used in the detection and performing a preliminary deceleration at a first time when the reliability is low and a normal deceleration after the reliability is increased), and the
second detecting comprises determining, at a second time, an accurate second position of the stop sign, the second time being strictly after the first time ([0071]-[0088] and figure 5 disclosing the reliability of the stop position indicative of a stop sign obtained from the apparatus used in the detection and performing a preliminary deceleration at a first time when the reliability is low and a normal deceleration after the reliability is increased).
Regarding claim 20, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa teaches a device to manage a longitudinal speed of an autonomous vehicle equipped with a brake actuator, the device comprising: hardware and/or software elements configured to implement the managing method as claimed in claim 11 (Oguro [0045]-[0050] disclosing processing to control braking device to brake the vehicle according to claim 11).
Regarding claim 21, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa teaches an autonomous vehicle: comprising: the device as claimed in claim 20 (Oguro [0045]-[0050] disclosing a vehicle comprising the device to stop autonomously).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Oguro (US20200114916, from IDS) in view of Tokimasa et al. (US20160009283) and Iwasaki (US20200282992).
Regarding claim 14, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa teaches managing method as claimed in claim 13, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa does not teach wherein the first slowdown logic initiates a first decelerating phase when the vehicle reaches a given distance from the approximate first position of the stop sign.
Iwasaki teaches wherein the first slowdown logic initiates a first decelerating phase when the vehicle reaches a given distance from the approximate first position of the stop sign ([0053]-[0054] disclosing the first deceleration starting at a given distance from the stop sign).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Oguro as modified by Tokimasa to incorporate the teaching of Iwasaki of wherein the first slowdown logic initiates a first decelerating phase when the vehicle reaches a given distance from the approximate first position of the stop sign in order to determine a distance where the vehicle is capable of stopping when decelerating as taught by Iwasaki [0054].
Regarding claim 15, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki further teaches managing method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the second slowdown logic starts a second decelerating phase at the second time, and the second decelerating phase exhibits continuity in speed and acceleration with the first decelerating phase.
Specifically, Iwasaki teaches wherein the second slowdown logic starts a second decelerating phase at the second time, and the second decelerating phase exhibits continuity in speed and acceleration with the first decelerating phase ([0066]-[0067] at least disclosing different decelerations starting at a different distances at later times than a first deceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Oguro as modified by Tokimasa to incorporate the teaching of Iwasaki of wherein the first slowdown logic initiates a first decelerating phase when the vehicle reaches a given distance from the approximate first position of the stop sign in order to determine a distance where the vehicle is capable of stopping when decelerating as taught by Iwasaki dynamically [0054]. Incorporating different combinations of decelerations are also an obvious design choice.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Oguro (US20200114916, from IDS) in view of Tokimasa et al. (US20160009283) and Iwasaki (US20200282992) and Althoff (US20230339465).
Regarding claim 16, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki teaches the managing method as claimed in claim 15, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki does not teach wherein at least one of the absolute value of the jerk at the end of the first decelerating phase is greater than the absolute value of the jerk at the start of the first decelerating phase, and the absolute value of the jerk at the end of the second decelerating phase is greater than the absolute value of the jerk at the start of the second decelerating phase.
Althoff teaches wherein at least one of the absolute value of the jerk at the end of the first decelerating phase is greater than the absolute value of the jerk at the start of the first decelerating phase, and the absolute value of the jerk at the end of the second decelerating phase is greater than the absolute value of the jerk at the start of the second decelerating phase (Figure 4 [0120] disclosing a jerk profile wherein the absolute value at the end of the phase is greater than the absolute value at the beginning of the phase).
It would have been obvious to combination of the teaching of Althoff with the teachings of Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki to effectively stop the vehicle using a jerk profile in order to effectively stop the vehicle by modifying the vehicle acceleration within a predefined jerk as taught by Althoff. It is also obvious to try to define a jerk profile with a greater jerk at the end of the phase in order to stop the vehicle leading to expected results.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Oguro (US20200114916, from IDS) in view of Tokimasa et al. (US20160009283) and Iwasaki (US20200282992) and Aurand (US20220203942).
Regarding claim 17, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki teaches the managing method as claimed claim 15, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki does not teach wherein at least one of the first decelerating phase is composed of three first consecutive sub-phases, the three first consecutive sub-phases including a first initial sub-phase having a first non-zero constant jerk, a first intermediate sub-phase having a jerk of zero, and a first final sub-phase having a second non-zero constant jerk, and the second decelerating phase is composed of three second consecutive sub-phases, the three second consecutive sub-phases a second initial sub-phase having a third non-zero constant jerk, a second intermediate sub-phase having a jerk of zero, and a second final sub- phase having a fourth non-zero constant jerk.
Aurand teaches wherein at least one of the first decelerating phase is composed of three first consecutive sub-phases, the three first consecutive sub-phases including a first initial sub-phase having a first non-zero constant jerk, a first intermediate sub-phase having a jerk of zero, and a first final sub-phase having a second non-zero constant jerk, and the second decelerating phase is composed of three second consecutive sub-phases, the three second consecutive sub-phases a second initial sub-phase having a third non-zero constant jerk, a second intermediate sub-phase having a jerk of zero, and a second final sub- phase having a fourth non-zero constant jerk (Figure 1 [0007]-[0011] disclosing the acceleration profile with a decreasing linear section followed by constant acceleration followed by increasing linear acceleration which would give a jerk with a starting constant -ve value and then a zero value and then a +ve value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki to incorporate the teaching of Aurand of at least one of the first decelerating phase is composed of three first consecutive sub-phases, the three first consecutive sub-phases including a first initial sub-phase having a first non-zero constant jerk, a first intermediate sub-phase having a jerk of zero, and a first final sub-phase having a second non-zero constant jerk in doing so, two further degrees of freedom emerge for setting the delay profile, namely the duration of the delay stop and the size of the threshold delay. Thus, preferably yet not necessarily with constant jolt values in the increase and decrease phases, it can be decelerated either for a delay stopping phase lasting longer with a lower threshold delay or with a shorter delay stopping phase with a higher threshold delay. In the case mentioned first, the stopping distance is increased, which is not problematic as long as the maximum stopping distance is not exceeded as taught by Aurand [0007]-[0011]. Aurand also notes that adding the constant deceleration phase here is to avoid the threshold delay “deceleration” becoming too high when dividing into two delay phases to be able to stop the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki and Aurand further teaches the managing method as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor.
Specifically, Aurand teaches wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor (Figure 1 disclosing the linear graph of decrease of deceleration phase is a copy of but opposite mirrored along an axis of the increase in deceleration phase, thus one of ordinary state in the art would interpret the jerk to be of opposite sign multiplied by a factor of 1 negative producing the constant jerk of a negative value thus multiplier is “-1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki to incorporate the teaching of Aurand of wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor in doing so, two further degrees of freedom emerge for setting the delay profile, namely the duration of the delay stop and the size of the threshold delay. Thus, preferably yet not necessarily with constant jolt values in the increase and decrease phases, it can be decelerated either for a delay stopping phase lasting longer with a lower threshold delay or with a shorter delay stopping phase with a higher threshold delay. In the case mentioned first, the stopping distance is increased, which is not problematic as long as the maximum stopping distance is not exceeded as taught by Aurand [0007]-[0011]. The choice of the profile polynomial is a design choice as taught by Aurand as well [0011].
Regarding claim 19, Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki and Aurand further teaches the managing method as claimed in claim 17, wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a first acceleration of the end of the first final sub-phase and a second acceleration of the first intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the second acceleration and a third acceleration of the start of the first initial sub-phase, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a fourth acceleration of the end of the second final sub-phase and a fifth acceleration of the second intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the fifth acceleration and a sixth acceleration of the start of the second initial sub-phase.
Aurand teaches wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a first acceleration of the end of the first final sub-phase and a second acceleration of the first intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the second acceleration and a third acceleration of the start of the first initial sub-phase, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a fourth acceleration of the end of the second final sub-phase and a fifth acceleration of the second intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the fifth acceleration and a sixth acceleration of the start of the second initial sub-phase (from figure 1 the sign of the difference between a first acceleration at the end of the final phase and the second acceleration of intermediate phase gives a positive value, a difference between the second acceleration at the middle phase and the beginning acceleration of first phase gives negative value, thus their multiplication gives a -ve value which is the sign of the multiplier that mirrors the first acceleration and final acceleration phases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Oguro as modified by Tokimasa and Iwasaki to incorporate the teaching of Aurand of wherein at least one of the second jerk is the product of the first jerk multiplied by a first multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a first acceleration of the end of the first final sub-phase and a second acceleration of the first intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the second acceleration and a third acceleration of the start of the first initial sub-phase, and the fourth jerk is the product of the third jerk multiplied by a second multiplicative factor having a sign that is the sign of the product between the difference between a fourth acceleration of the end of the second final sub-phase and a fifth acceleration of the second intermediate sub-phase, and the difference between the fifth acceleration and a sixth acceleration of the start of the second initial sub-phase in doing so, two further degrees of freedom emerge for setting the delay profile, namely the duration of the delay stop and the size of the threshold delay. Thus, preferably yet not necessarily with constant jolt values in the increase and decrease phases, it can be decelerated either for a delay stopping phase lasting longer with a lower threshold delay or with a shorter delay stopping phase with a higher threshold delay. In the case mentioned first, the stopping distance is increased, which is not problematic as long as the maximum stopping distance is not exceeded as taught by Aurand [0007]-[0011]. The choice of the profile polynomial is a design choice as taught by Aurand as well [0011].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/08/2025 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the amendmed claim, the arguments are directed towords newly added subject matter which necessitates a final rejection. The arguments directed towards the 916 reference or the combination of the 916 with any other reference are moot since the rejection does not require the 916 reference in any combination. The 615 reference teaches multiple detections at different times of the stop position and a preliminary deceleration at a far distance greater than a threshold followed by a normal deceleration at a closer time when the distance is reduced to a lower than a threshold indicative of a higher reliability of sensor information [000]-[0083]. A new reference teaches incorporating different sensors to measure at different distance increases accuracy, the combination is obvious yielding predictable results of increased accuracy of the distance measured using different types of sensors.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20190176829 disclosing detecting objects within a first zone to slow down the vehicle and in a second zone closer to the vehicle to stop the vehicle.
US20210182576 disclosing fusing camera sensor with GPS for accuracy.
US20230382377 disclosing multiple different deceleration profiles with different jerks such as stopping more quickly in emergency.
US20230373488 disclosing changing maximum deceleration if a sudden change of light signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B