DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 02/27/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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) are:
Claims 1-20: autonomous driving control device (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1, 5 and 17-18: road shape grasping unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-17: continuation determination unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 3 and 8: notification control unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 12 and 17: subject vehicle position grasping unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 18 and 20: control change unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding autonomous driving control device, road shape grasping unit, continuation determination unit, notification control unit, subject vehicle position grasping unit and control change unit, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of ECU, processor and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 2 and a portion of paragraph [0021], [0044] and [0138] of the specification reproduced below:
[0021] A function of an autonomous driving control device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is implemented by an autonomous driving electronic control unit (ECU) 50b illustrated in FIG. 1.
[0044] The storage unit 53 stores various programs (such as an autonomous driving control program) to be executed by the processing unit 51. By the execution of the programs by the processing unit 51, the information coordination unit 61, an environment recognition unit 62, an action determination unit 63, a control execution unit 64, and the like are constructed in the autonomous driving ECU 50b as multiple functional units for implementing the autonomous driving function (see FIG. 2)
[0138] the information coordination unit 61 corresponds to a "notification control unit", and the action determination unit 63 corresponds to a "continuation determination unit". Further, the road information grasping unit 72 corresponds to a "road shape grasping unit", the subject vehicle state grasping unit 73 corresponds to a "subject vehicle position grasping unit", the control switching unit 77 corresponds to a "control change unit", and the autonomous driving ECU 50b corresponds to an "autonomous driving control device
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “low” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret changing the driving control state to a state having a low dependency on the driver as changing the driving control state to a state having a lower dependency on the driver.
The term “near” in claims 9, 11 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret at a near side of as at a .
Claims 19-20 are dependent on claims 18, and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Therefore, claims 1-20 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. An autonomous driving control device configured to allow a subject vehicle to travel with autonomous travel control in which a driver has no surroundings monitoring obligation, the autonomous driving control device comprising:
a road shape grasping unit configured to grasp, as a road shape of a merging area present in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle traveling with the autonomous travel control, at least whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area; and
a continuation determination unit configured to determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area, according to whether the merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. “grasp … whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area” and “determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area 20 […]” is equivalent to a person evaluating a behavior based on observation, i.e. a mental process of judgement based on observation.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. An autonomous driving control device configured to allow a subject vehicle to travel with autonomous travel control in which a driver has no surroundings monitoring obligation, the autonomous driving control device comprising:
a road shape grasping unit configured to grasp, as a road shape of a merging area present in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle traveling with the autonomous travel control, at least whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area; and
a continuation determination unit configured to determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area, according to whether the merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “autonomous driving control device”, “road shape grasping unit” and “continuation determination unit”, they are recited at a high level of generality and performing a generic computer function of automating the steps of determining, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to grasp whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area and determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
In contrast to claim 1 which generally recites “determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control”, claims 2, 4-5 and 17-18 recite “permit continuation”, “restrict continuation”, “change a driving control state” and “switch from the autonomous travel control to manual driving”, thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 1 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO (US 20200307596 A1), in view of CHIKA (JP2016146056A).
YASHIRO is cited in the IDS received on 02/27/2024.
Espacenet English translation of CHIKA referenced by the Examiner is attached.
Regarding claim 1, YASHIRO teaches an autonomous driving control device configured to allow a subject vehicle to travel with autonomous travel control in which a driver has no surroundings monitoring obligation (FIG. 10; para. [0091]: “Each of the first driving status and the second driving status herein refers to a driving state in which at least a task of monitoring surroundings is imposed on a driver. The third driving status herein refers to a driving state in which a task imposed on the driver is reduced, compared to that at the second driving status”, wherein third driving status does not impose the task of monitoring surroundings), the autonomous driving control device comprising:
a road shape grasping unit (para. [0220]: “the vehicle controller 100 according to this embodiment includes: the surrounding area recognition unit 142 configured to recognize a surrounding state of the subject vehicle M; the area specification unit 143”) configured to grasp, as a road shape of a merging area present in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle traveling with the autonomous travel control, at least whether a number of lanes decreases (para. [0084]: “The area specification unit 143 specifies a specific area in a lane on a road, in which the subject vehicle is traveling. The specific area herein means an area with an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like. The area specification unit 143 acquires a specific area from map information.”, wherein the specific area comprises of junction and the number of lanes increased or decreased); and
a continuation determination unit (FIG 2; para. [0059]: “0059] The vehicle controller 100 includes […] a traveling plan creation unit 144”; para. [0090]: “The traveling plan creation unit 144 includes a control state change unit 145”) configured to determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area, according to whether the merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases (FIG. 14; FIG. 18; para. [0094]: “When the subject vehicle M enters a specific area (an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like)”; para. [0179]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered the specific area or, if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling in the position a predetermined distance short of the specific area, the subject vehicle M shifts the driving status thereof to the second driving status in step S104 and the processing of the flowchart terminates.”; S104: “shift to second driving status”; S105: “keep third driving status”, wherein switch to second driving status indicates determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area, and specific area comprises of merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases), but fails to specifically teach grasp whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area.
However, CHIKA teaches grasp whether at least a number of lanes decreases in the merging area (FIGs. 2-4; para. [0064]: “When the number of lanes increases at the merging point 34 As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, when the number of lanes of the road 32 traveling at the merging point 34 increases more than the number of lanes of the merging road 37,”, wherein “number of lanes increases at the merging point 34” indicates grasp whether at least a number of lanes decreases in the merging area as shown in FIGs. 2-4, which shows that the merging lane disappearing at the merging point).
YASHIRO is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. CHIKA is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in determining the number of lanes in the merging area. 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 YASHIRO to incorporate the teachings of CHIKA and determine whether the number of lanes in the merging area decreases. Doing so will allow appropriate assessment of the risk in the merging area (CHIKA, para. [0005]) depending on whether the lane decreases or increases in the merging area.
Regarding claim 5, YASHIRO teaches an autonomous driving control device configured to allow a subject vehicle to travel with autonomous travel control in which a driver has no surroundings monitoring obligation (FIG. 10; para. [0091]: “Each of the first driving status and the second driving status herein refers to a driving state in which at least a task of monitoring surroundings is imposed on a driver. The third driving status herein refers to a driving state in which a task imposed on the driver is reduced, compared to that at the second driving status”, wherein third driving status does not impose the task of monitoring surroundings), the autonomous driving control device comprising:
a road shape grasping unit (para. [0220]: “the vehicle controller 100 according to this embodiment includes: the surrounding area recognition unit 142 configured to recognize a surrounding state of the subject vehicle M; the area specification unit 143”) configured to grasp, as a road shape of a merging area in which a merging lane and a main vehicular lane merge, at least whether a number of lanes decreases (FIGs. 12-13 and 18; para. [0084]: “The area specification unit 143 specifies a specific area in a lane on a road, in which the subject vehicle is traveling. The specific area herein means an area with an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like. The area specification unit 143 acquires a specific area from map information.”; para. [0204]: “in step S401, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not the lane in which the subject vehicle M is traveling leads to the specific area in which the number of lanes is increased or decreased”, wherein the determination of whether the current lane decreases indicate the subject vehicle travels with the autonomous travel control in the merging lane); and
a continuation determination unit (FIG 2; para. [0059]: “0059] The vehicle controller 100 includes […] a traveling plan creation unit 144”; para. [0090]: “The traveling plan creation unit 144 includes a control state change unit 145”) configured to change a driving control state of the subject vehicle including the autonomous travel control, according to whether the merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases (FIG. 14; FIG. 18; para. [0094]: “When the subject vehicle M enters a specific area (an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like)”; para. [0179]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered the specific area or, if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling in the position a predetermined distance short of the specific area, the subject vehicle M shifts the driving status thereof to the second driving status in step S104 and the processing of the flowchart terminates.”; S104: “shift to second driving status”; S105: “keep third driving status”, wherein switch to second driving status indicates determine whether to continue the autonomous travel control in the merging area, and specific area comprises of merging area has the road shape in which the number of lanes decreases), but fails to specifically teach grasp whether a number of lanes decreases in the merging area.
However, CHIKA teaches grasp whether at least a number of lanes decreases in the merging area (FIGs. 2-4; para. [0064]: “When the number of lanes increases at the merging point 34 As shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, when the number of lanes of the road 32 traveling at the merging point 34 increases more than the number of lanes of the merging road 37,”, wherein “number of lanes increases at the merging point 34” indicates grasp whether at least a number of lanes decreases in the merging area as shown in FIGs. 2-4, which shows that the merging lane disappearing at the merging point).
YASHIRO is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. CHIKA is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in determining the number of lanes in the merging area. 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 YASHIRO to incorporate the teachings of CHIKA and determine whether the number of lanes in the merging area decreases. Doing so will allow appropriate assessment of the risk in the merging area (CHIKA, para. [0005]) depending on whether the lane decreases or increases in the merging area.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of CHIKA, and further in view of Sato (US 20180046185 A1).
Regarding claim 7, YASHIRO in view of CHIKA teaches the autonomous driving control device according to claim 5. YASHIRO further teaches wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to perform notification of requesting the driver to perform a driving takeover (FIG. 15; para. [0180]: “FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating an example of shift notification information outputted by the navigation device 50 or the HMI 70. The HMI control part 170 provides control on the navigation device 50 or the HMI 70 such that a vehicle occupant is notified via an image or speech that the subject vehicle M shifts the driving status from the third driving status down to the second driving status. In this example, the navigation device 50 or the HMI 70 notifies the vehicle occupant of the shift via an image or speech indicating that “the driving status is shifted to the second driving status because the subject vehicle is approaching an interchange, a junction, or an area with the number of the lanes decreased””), but fails to specifically teach perform notification of requesting the driver to perform a driving takeover earlier, when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane narrows in the merging area than when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane does not narrow.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches perform notification of requesting the driver to perform a driving takeover earlier, when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane narrows in the merging area than when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane does not narrow (para. [0064]: “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 9, when the degree of difficulty of manual driving in the area inappropriate for autonomous driving AIA is high, compared with when the degree of difficulty of manual driving is low, the second interval dt2 is made longer. In this case, the notification control part 20b finds the degree of difficulty of manual driving in the following way, for example. […] Alternatively, if the road width in the area inappropriate for autonomous driving AIA is narrow, compared with if the road width is broad, the degree of difficulty of manual driving is higher. […] That is, in the first example of calculation, if the degree of difficulty of manual driving in the area inappropriate for autonomous driving AIA is higher, the notification timing of notification tRP of a request for preparing for manual driving is made earlier. Therefore, the driver can more sufficiently prepare for manual driving. Further, if the degree of difficulty of manual driving in the area inappropriate for autonomous driving AIA is low, the notification timing tRP of a request for preparing for manual driving is delayed, and therefore the driver is further limited from feeling bothered.”, wherein road width narrowing indicates merging lane narrows in the merging area).
Sato is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. 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 YASHIRO in view of CHIKA to incorporate the teachings of Sato and perform earlier notification depending on the difficulty of manual driving, such as narrowing of merging area. Doing so will enhance safety by driver can more sufficiently prepare for manual driving (Sato, para. [0064]) based on the difficulty of manual driving.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of CHIKA, and further in view of GARG (US 20230067887 A1), and further in view of Kazemi (US20190235499A1)
Regarding claim 9, YASHIRO in view of CHIKA teaches the autonomous driving control device according to claim 5, but fails to specifically teach wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to start stop control of stopping the subject vehicle at a near side of a position where the merging lane disappears, when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane narrows and lane change to the main vehicular lane is not performed.
However, GARG teaches the continuation determination unit is configured to start stop control of stopping the subject vehicle (para. [0012]: “In some examples, the vehicle computing system may determine a planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a lane change and the autonomous vehicle is unable to perform the lane change. For example, when the autonomous vehicle is navigating in a first lane and the planned path of the autonomous vehicle includes a lane change into a second lane that is occupied by another vehicle, the planned path of the autonomous vehicle may be impeded by the other vehicle. In some examples, responsive to determining that the lane change failure has occurred (e.g., the vehicle is unable to perform the lane change), the vehicle computing system may cause the autonomous vehicle to stop forward movement. In some examples, the vehicle computing system may cause the autonomous vehicle to stop forward movement at a designated location. The designated location can include a location determined by the vehicle computing system, such as a location prior to (e.g., a threshold distance from) a junction associated with the planned path of the autonomous vehicle, or the like.”).
GARG is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. 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 YASHIRO in view of CHIKA to incorporate the teachings of GARG and stop the vehicle when unable to perform a lane change. Doing so will enhance safety by driver and other drivers by performing an alternative maneuver such that the vehicle is stopped in a designated location to prevent delaying the autonomous vehicle or causing the autonomous vehicle to block the flow of traffic (GARG, para. [0064]). YASHIRO in view of CHIKA and further in view of GARG fails to specifically teach stopping the subject vehicle at a near side of a position where the merging lane disappears, when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane narrows.
However, Kazemi teaches stopping the subject vehicle at a near side of a position where the merging lane disappears, when the merging area has a road shape in which the merging lane narrows (FIG. 7; FIG. 8; para. [0151]: “As illustrated, FIG. 8 shows an environment 800 that includes a road area 802,[…] a vehicle 810 (e.g., an autonomous vehicle), a path 812 (e.g., a travel path of the vehicle 810), a location 814 (e.g., a stopping location of the vehicle 810 at the end of the path 812).”).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
317
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kazemi is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in stopping the vehicle in response to an event. 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 the designated location of YASHIRO in view of CHIKA and further in view of GARG to incorporate the teachings of Kazemi and stop the vehicle at a side of the position where the lane disappear. Doing so will enhance safety by driver and other drivers by stopping the vehicle in a safe manner (Kazemi, para. [0024]), and further avoid blocking the passage of other vehicles.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of CHIKA, and further in view of Kondo (US20170203770A1).
Regarding claim 10, YASHIRO in view of CHIKA teaches the autonomous driving control device according to claim 5, but fails to specifically teach wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to change the driving control state to a state having a higher dependency on the driver, when the main vehicular lane is congested than when the main vehicular lane is not congested.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KONDO teaches wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to change the driving control state to a state having a higher dependency on the driver, when the main vehicular lane is congested than when the main vehicular lane is not congested (FIG. 6; para. [0077]: “In the case where it is necessary for the vehicle to change to a different road 52 at a JCT, at which a main lane 51 and the different road 52 are connected to each other as illustrated in FIG. 6, in order to reach a destination location, for example, it is necessary to make a lane change to the left lane. If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic.”, wherein “automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic” indicates that automated drive can be executed without traffic).
KONDO is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. 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 YASHIRO in view of CHIKA to incorporate the teachings of KONDO and restrict autonomous driving mode in heavy traffic. Doing so will enhance safety by suspend travel through the automated drive control and commence manual drive in areas where automated drive control may be difficult (Kondo, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, YASHIRO in view of CHIKA teaches the autonomous driving control device according to claim 5, but fails to specifically teach wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to restrict execution of processing of changing the driving control state to a state having a low dependency on the driver, when the subject vehicle is scheduled to perform lane change after merging in the merging area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, KONDO teaches wherein the continuation determination unit is configured to restrict execution of processing of changing the driving control state to a state having a low dependency on the driver, when the subject vehicle is scheduled to perform lane change after merging in the merging area (FIG. 6; para. [0077]: “In the case where it is necessary for the vehicle to change to a different road 52 at a JCT, at which a main lane 51 and the different road 52 are connected to each other as illustrated in FIG. 6, in order to reach a destination location, for example, it is necessary to make a lane change to the left lane. If it is determined that a lane change cannot be made through the automated drive control because the road 52 is crowded, a section in which the vehicle is required to make a lane change is too short, or the like, audio guidance saying “The vehicle is heading for ◯◯. Automated drive cannot be executed because of the heavy traffic.”, wherein “change to a different road 52 at a JCT” indicates lane change after merging in the merging area and “automated drive cannot be executed” indicates that to restrict execution of processing of changing the driving control state to a state having a low dependency on the driver).
KONDO is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. 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 YASHIRO in view of CHIKA to incorporate the teachings of KONDO and restrict autonomous driving mode when lane change is to be made in a junction. Doing so will enhance safety by suspend travel through the automated drive control and commence manual drive in areas where automated drive control may be difficult (Kondo, para. [0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASHIRO, in view of CHIKA, and further in view of Harada (US 20180129206 A1).
Regarding claim 11, YASHIRO in view of CHIKA teaches the autonomous driving control device according to claim 5, but fails to specifically teach wherein the continuation determination unit causes the subject vehicle to merge in the merging area while continuing the autonomous travel control, when the merging lane is congested at a near side of the merging area.
However, Harada teaches wherein the continuation determination unit causes the subject vehicle to merge in the merging area while continuing the autonomous travel control, when the merging lane is congested at a near side of the merging area (FIG. 2; para. [0007]: “improving driving convenience in the case of traveling through a merging point during a period of traffic congestion”; para. [0059]: “In step S3, the merging point detection unit 62 detects the presence or absence of a specified merging point 104. Such a “specified” merging point 104 is defined, for example, by [1] a condition on the planned travel route of the host vehicle 100, in which [2] a state of congestion is taking place or is likely to take place in the vicinity of the merging point 104”; para. [0092]: “carry out a travel control for the host vehicle 100 by way of automated driving, comprising [1] the merging point detection unit 62 adapted to detect a merging point 104 during a congested state on a planned travel route of the host vehicle 100, [2] the entry space searching unit 64 adapted to search for an entry space 124 for the host vehicle 100 within a merging destination lane 116 that passes through the merging point 104, […] perform a countermeasure control to contend with merging into the merging destination lane 116 while continuing to automatically drive the host vehicle 100, in the event that a search result is obtained which indicates that an entry space 124 does not exist”).
Harada is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of changing driving mode based on the road condition and surrounding environment. 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 YASHIRO in view of CHIKA to incorporate the teachings of Harada and continuing the autonomous travel control in a congested merging point. Doing so will improve driving convenience in the case of traveling through a merging point during a period of traffic congestion (Harada, para. [0064]) by reducing the need for a switch to manual driving mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, closest prior arts, YASHIRO (US 20200307596 A1), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
YASHIRO teaches determining whether the vehicle is approaching a merging or branching area (FIG. 18; para. [0094]: “When the subject vehicle M enters a specific area (an interchange, a junction, the number of lanes increased or decreased, or the like)”) and determine whether to switch driving mode of the vehicle based on whether the lane in which the vehicle is traveling increases or decreases (para. [0204]-[0205]: “If, in step S102, the subject vehicle M is determined to have entered a specific area (an interchange, a junction, or the number of lanes increased or decreased) (step S102: Yes), or if, in step S103, the subject vehicle M is determined to be traveling a predetermined distance short of the specific area (step S103: Yes), then, in step S401, the control state change unit 145 determines whether or not the lane in which the subject vehicle M is traveling leads to the specific area in which the number of lanes is increased or decreased […] If the lane in which the subject vehicle M is traveling is determined to lead to the specific area in which the number of lanes is increased or decreased, the processing advances to step S104.”), but fails to specifically teach a continuation determination unit configured to interrupt the autonomous travel control, when a branch lane, which is an increased lane in the branching area, is adjacent to the subject vehicle lane, and permit continuation of the autonomous travel control, when the branch lane is not adjacent to the subject vehicle lane and
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/A.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668