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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 02/03/2026. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 06/05/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20, are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 19, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2-3, and 11-12, are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 10, and 19, are independent claims.
Claims , 4-10, and 13-20, will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Amended Claims” and “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” dated 02/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) NISHIMURA et al., US 20250014732, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) WU, FASOLA, and TIWARI. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU et al., US 20230278583, herein further known as Wu, in view of FASOLA et al., US 20230406293, herein further known as Fasola, further in view of XIANG et al., US 20220032955, herein further known as Xiang.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a control device comprising: a storage (¶¶ [0063-0066], storage medium) configured to store a first control model (¶¶ [0023], [0026-0028], [0033], [0037], [0044], [0051-0061] primary decision unit 21, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066], ) and a second control model (¶¶ [0023], [0026-0028], [0033], [0037], [0044], [0051-0061] alternative decision unit 22, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066]) and a processor (¶¶ [0063], [0067]); wherein the second control model (e.g. alternative decision unit 22, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066]) is configured to be capable of deriving a control command without abnormality in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0028], [0032], alternative decision unit 22… takes over and calculates decision information (i.e. control model) based on the environment information), by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data (¶¶ [0053-55], verification codes, heartbeat message); and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model (¶¶ [0051], [0053-54], verification set in primary decision unit 21, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066]); controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal (¶¶ [0036], [0039], selecting first vehicle control), movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command; and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model, the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model (¶¶ [0028], [0041], [0046], primary control unit 34 is abnormal) or a third control command originating from a manual operation by a user (¶ [0062], switch from autonomous, intervention of driver).
However, Wu does not explicitly state second control model is configured to be capable of deriving a control command in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model, by (1) accepting input of only a part of a first input data of the first control model or (2) accepting second input data of a type different at least partly from the first input data of the first control model; and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model; controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command; and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model, the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model.
Fasola teaches state the second control model (¶ [0041], fallback control system, a secondary fallback AV software stack) is configured to be capable of deriving a control command (¶ [0023], generating a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the alternative action) in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0022-0023]), by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data (¶ [0021], fallback control system being different from (or nonoverlapping with) algorithms, ¶ [0022], alternative action using a second process different than (or orthogonal to) the first process); and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model (¶ [0023], no faulty (or failure)… generate a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the first action); controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command (¶¶ [0023], [0094], no faulty (or failure) condition), control the vehicle based on the primary control system); and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0023], [0041], faulty (or failure)), the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model (¶¶ [0064], generate control commands for controlling the AV, [0083], controlling the vehicle, [0095], control commands or parameters for controlling the actuator system of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the state the second control model is configured to be capable of deriving a control command in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model, by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data; and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model; controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command; and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model, the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model as taught by Fasola.
Furthermore, Xiang teaches accepting second input data of a type different at least partly from the first input data of the first control model (¶¶ [0086], different surrounding monitoring sensors 11, front camera 11A, millimeter-wave radar 11B, [0118], multiple cameras having different angles of view, [0135], sensor whose mounting position is different from that of the subject sensor, [0151], claim 12).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the accepting second input data of a type different at least partly from the first input data of the first control model as taught by Xiang.
One would be motivated to modify Wu in view of Xiang for the reasons stated in Xiang paragraph [0077], more robust method and system wherein the liability is, the smaller the potential accident liability value becomes. Therefore, the potential accident liability value becomes smaller as the subject vehicle is “more eagerly/determinedly” driving safely.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Wu discloses further controlling the movement of the mobile body according to the second control command (¶¶ [0033-0036], see also FIG. 2) or the third control command (¶ [0062], transmit alarm, request intervention) is configured with: deciding which of the second control model and the manual operation is to be adopted (¶ [0062], decision from unit 22), according to an environment of the movement of the mobile body (¶¶ [0024-0028]; deriving, if it is decided that the second control model is to be adopted (¶¶ [0028], [0032], alternative decision unit 22… takes over and calculates decision information (i.e. control model) based on the environment information), the second control command using the second control model and controlling the movement of the mobile body according to the derived second control command (¶¶ [0003], controller controls the vehicle to move along a decided path, [0023], [0030], [0046-0050], transmit the second vehicle control information to the bottom vehicle controller); and controlling, if it is decided that the manual operation is to be adopted, the movement of the mobile body according to the third control command originating from the manual operation (¶ [0062]).
Furthermore, Fasola teaches state the second control model (¶ [0041], fallback control system, a secondary fallback AV software stack) is configured to be capable of normally deriving a control command (¶ [0023], generating a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the alternative action) in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0022-0023]), by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data (¶ [0021], fallback control system being different from (or nonoverlapping with) algorithms, ¶ [0022], alternative action using a second process different than (or orthogonal to) the first process); and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model (¶ [0023], no faulty (or failure)… generate a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the first action); controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command (¶¶ [0023], [0094], no faulty (or failure) condition), control the vehicle based on the primary control system); and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0023], [0041], faulty (or failure)), the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model (¶¶ [0064], generate control commands for controlling the AV, [0083], controlling the vehicle, [0095], control commands or parameters for controlling the actuator system of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the state the second control model is configured to be capable of normally deriving a control command in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model, by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data; and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model; controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command; and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model, the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model as taught by Fasola.
One would be motivated to modify Wu in view of Fasola for the reasons stated in Fasola paragraph [0114], more robust method and system where it is desirable to have fallback controls built into an AV to handle erroneous and/or faulty events independent of remote assistance and for gathering and use of sensed data available from various sources to improve quality and experience.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 4 above.
Wu discloses further the mobile body is a vehicle (¶¶ [0003-0006], autonomous driving of a vehicle, [0022], autonomous vehicles).
However, Wu does not explicitly state the environment of the movement of the mobile body includes a type of a road where the vehicle travels.
Fasola teaches the mobile body is a vehicle, and the environment of the movement of the mobile body includes a type of a road where the vehicle travels (¶¶ [0026], exit road or lane, [0030], AV 10 may be depicted as a passenger car in FIG. 1, [0037], road segments, see FIG. 4 depicting vehicle on road).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the mobile body is a vehicle, and the environment of the movement of the mobile body includes a type of a road where the vehicle travels as taught by Fasola.
One would be motivated to modify Wu in view of Fasola for the reasons stated in Fasola paragraph [0114], more robust method and system where it is desirable to have fallback controls built into an AV to handle erroneous and/or faulty events independent of remote assistance and for gathering and use of sensed data available from various sources to improve quality and experience.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Wu discloses controlling the movement of the mobile body according to the second control command (¶¶ [0003], controller controls the vehicle to move along a decided path, [0023], [0030], [0046-0050], transmit the second vehicle control information to the bottom vehicle controller) or the third control command (¶ [0062], switch from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode so as to take over the vehicle) is configured with: controlling, if the derivation of the second control command by the second control model is normal, the movement of the mobile body according to the derived second control command (¶¶ [0041]); and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the second control command by the second control model, the movement of the mobile body according to the third control command originating from the manual operation (¶ [0062]).
Furthermore, Fasola teaches state the second control model (¶ [0041], fallback control system, a secondary fallback AV software stack) is configured to be capable of normally deriving a control command (¶ [0023], generating a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the alternative action) in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0022-0023]), by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data (¶ [0021], fallback control system being different from (or nonoverlapping with) algorithms, ¶ [0022], alternative action using a second process different than (or orthogonal to) the first process); and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model (¶ [0023], no faulty (or failure)… generate a control command for controlling the vehicle based on the first action); controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command (¶¶ [0023], [0094], no faulty (or failure) condition), control the vehicle based on the primary control system); and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model (¶¶ [0023], [0041], faulty (or failure)), the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model (¶¶ [0064], generate control commands for controlling the AV, [0083], controlling the vehicle, [0095], control commands or parameters for controlling the actuator system of the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the state the second control model is configured to be capable of normally deriving a control command in at least a part of scenes of an abnormality occurring in derivation of a control command by the first control model, by being different from the first control model in at least any of a type and input data; and the processor is configured to execute: trying derivation of a first control command using the first control model; controlling, if the derivation of the first control command by the first control model is normal, movement of a mobile body according to the derived first control command; and controlling, if an abnormality occurs in the derivation of the first control command by the first control model, the movement of the mobile body according to a second control command derived by the second control model as taught by Fasola.
One would be motivated to modify Wu in view of Fasola for the reasons stated in Fasola paragraph [0114], more robust method and system where it is desirable to have fallback controls built into an AV to handle erroneous and/or faulty events independent of remote assistance and for gathering and use of sensed data available from various sources to improve quality and experience.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Wu discloses the abnormality occurring in the derivation of the first control command includes an output failure of the first control model occurring (¶¶ [0003], decision information (i.e. control model) outputted from the decision unit, [0028], [0032], [0051-0055], primary decision unit 21 is abnormal, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Wu discloses further abnormality occurring in the derivation of the first control command (¶¶ [0028], [0032], alternative decision unit 22… takes over and calculates decision information (i.e. control model) based on the environment information) includes an amount of change in the output of the first control model per unit time being above a threshold (claim 14).
Regarding claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 1. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 4. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 5. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 6. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 7. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 9. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 1. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 4. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 8, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, in view of TIWARI et al., US 20180267558, herein further known as Tiwari.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wu, Fasola, and Xiang, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Wu discloses abnormality occurring in the derivation of the first control command and output of the first control model (¶¶ [0003], decision information (i.e. control model) outputted from the decision unit, [0028], [0032], [0051-0055], primary decision unit 21 is abnormal, see also FIGS. 1-3, [0063-0066]).
However, Wu does not explicitly state command includes reliability of output of the control model being below a threshold, .
Tiwari teaches command includes reliability of output of the control model being below a threshold (¶ [0056], confidence level falls below a threshold level, wherein the reliability is linked to confidence level, “more reliable, processing architecture”.
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Wu the command includes reliability of output of the control model being below a threshold as taught by Tiwari.
One would be motivated to modify Wu in view of Tiwari for the reasons stated in Tiwari paragraph [0021], more robust method and system linking data to generate improved decision-making models by training such models, [0025-0026], to improve accuracy of determining characteristics of vehicle surroundings, facilitate improved accuracy, processing, and gathering-efficiency of surroundings data, [0028], improve upon the processing of collected non-generic data).
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control device apparatus in claim 8. The non-transitory storage medium storing a control program taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666