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 .
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-20 is pending for examination.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 are canceled
Claims 19-20 have been withdrawn.
This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-14 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. In response to Applicant's amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are not persuasive.
First applicant argues:
“First, Yu does not disclose that an MRM type is structured as a predefined base action path composed of sequential action portions, where each action portion defines a time interval and comprises multiple coordinated vehicle-side actions. Yu' s "series of operations" is a conceptual description of maneuver behavior, which could be implemented as simple conditional logic or a subroutine call, rather than a specific, multi-layered data structure stored in memory for fine-grained manipulation like a structured, manipulable timeline object. Yu does not suggest that it is a structured, time-bounded action-portion sequence. There is no disclosure in Yu of dividing an MRM into multiple action portions, no disclosure of time intervals associated with such portions, and no disclosure of multiple vehicle-side actions grouped per portion in a coordinated execution block. An MRM type is not presented as a multi-portion, temporally partitioned plan.”
Examiner disagrees. First how applicant is defining “a predefined base action path composed of sequential action portions” is narrower in scope than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The terms within “a predefined base action path stored in the memory, the predefined base action path including a plurality of sequential action portions, each action portion defining a respective time interval and comprising a plurality of respective vehicle-side actions that are configured to be executed during that time interval” are being interpreted under their plain meaning as they possess no universally accepted alternate meanings within the art. Yu does not need to teach a “multi-layered data structure stored in memory for fine-grained manipulation like a structured, manipulable timeline object” The action portions under broadest reasonable interpretation can be considered an arbitrary grouping of actions. Additionally predefined can be defined as “to create with established rules or parameters in advance” As shown in fig. 7 of Yu there can be two action portions established by the vehicle programming. The RTI and the MRM each possess multiple actions as discussed throughout Yu. It should be noted as discussed in the 112(a) rejection applicant’s specification does not have support for each action portion defining a respective time interval. However Yu teaches the RTI having a timeout and also being able to time the MRM to complete before the required time.
Second applicant argues:
“Second, Yu does not disclose initiating execution of a multi-portion base action path beginning at a first sequential action portion. Yu discloses initiating an MRM type itself, but there is no disclosure of internal action portions within a selected MRM type, much less that execution begins at a defined "first portion" of such a sequence.”
Examiner disagrees. There are two portions. The RTI and the MRM. With the MRM occurring after the RTI as disclosed in fig. 7.
Thirds applicant argues:
“Third, Yu does not disclose evaluating the hazardous situation while a predefined base action path is executing and generating an evaluation result that is used to modify the predefined base action path itself Yu does describe that the MRM type may be changed based on environmental conditions, but this change represents selecting a different maneuver type from a set of alternatives, not modifying the internal structure of a multi-portion action path within a single type. The claims require a fundamentally different mechanism: structural modification of the ongoing sequence itself, not switching between alternative maneuver types.”
Examiner disagrees. Once again In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., modifying the internal structure of a multi-portion action path within a single type and structural modification of the ongoing sequence itself) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It should be noted that the specification in itself does not even disclose details regarding a “data structure”. At most it discloses a “structured sequence of action portions”. A definition of structure is “arrange according to a plan”. Yu does disclose skipping individual vehicle-side actions as discussed in 0052-0054 and 0057
Fourth applicant argues:
“Yu does not disclose modifying the predefined base action path by performing any of the specific structural modifications recited in the claims. Yu does not disclose skipping internal portions of a stored multi-portion sequence or skipping individual vehicle-side actions within such a sequence. Yu does not disclose altering the duration of time- bounded portions or of individual actions within them. Yu does not disclose altering temporal overlap relationships between defined sequential portions. Yu also does not disclose adjusting the intensity of individual actions within predefined, time-bounded portions. Changing from one MRM type to another is not equivalent to modifying the internal structure of a multi- portion action path, as required by the claims.”
Examiner disagrees. Yu does disclose skipping individual vehicle-side actions as discussed in 0052-0054 and 0057
Fifth applicant argues:
“Fifth, Yu does not disclose replacing the remaining unexecuted portion of the predefined base action path with a modified action path. Because Yu does not disclose that an MRM type consists of multiple action portions, there is no concept in Yu of a "remaining unexecuted portion" of a multi-portion stored plan, much less replacing only that remainder with a modified plan. Yu's possible change of MRM type is a high-level strategy switch and does not involve partial replacement of an internal timeline structure.”
Examiner disagrees. As discussed above the MRM is simply one of two portions. If the MRM is switched it can be said the unexecuted portion has been skipped. Second no internal timeline structure has been claimed. Third the language an internal timeline structure does not have support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, 13, and 14 the limitation “retrieving, from a memory of the vehicle and in response to the detecting, a predefined base action path stored in the memory, the predefined base action path including a plurality of sequential action portions, each action portion defining a respective time interval and comprising a plurality of respective vehicle-side actions that are configured to be executed during that time interval;” lacks written description in applicant’s specification specifically for “each action portion defining a respective time interval”. Applicant’s specification is devoid of any recitation of a “time interval” for an action portion. Applicant’s specification discloses “It is particularly advantageous to determine a time span until a safety-critical situation is reached. For example, a dangerous traffic situation such as a construction site can already be ascertained to be in the future. This time span can then be compared to the duration of the action path in the basic definition. If the duration of the action path is too long, the mentioned modifications can be carried out until the duration of the modified action path is less than the calculated time span.” Thus at most the specification indicates defining a time span for the entire path not the individual portions.
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) 1-2, 4, 7, 11, 13-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20250065919 A1, hereinafter known as Yu) in view of Iwasa (US 20190382009 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches A computer-implemented method for operating a vehicle in an automated driving mode, the method comprising the following steps:
detecting,
{Abstract “The present invention relates to an automated driving system for switching between automated driving mode and manual driving mode in an automated driving situation, and a fallback method for an automated driving failure situation in the automated driving system. According to the present invention, the method comprises the steps of predicting whether, on a route a vehicle is traveling, the vehicle will deviate from an operational design domain (ODD) in which automated driving is possible; and when deviation is predicted, performing a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) process for controlling the vehicle to respond to an automated driving failure situation at a deviation point. According to the present invention, the stability of the automated driving system in emergency situations may be increased, and by proposing a stable mode-switching method for the automated driving system, the best response method may be provided.”
Para [0034] “However, these internal components of the automated driving controller 110 may be integrated and operated as a single system. Consequently, the entire automated driving system 100 may become inoperative due to a failure in a communication line related to the sensor or a power supply issue.”
Para [0043] “The automated driving system 100 according to this embodiment described hereinabove is to provide a safe fallback by using an independent structure in a case where an emergency situation occurs in the automated driving due to a failure in the system or the problem in the power or the communication network.”
}
retrieving, from a memory of the vehicle and in response to the detecting, a predefined base action path stored in the memory, the predefined base action path including a plurality of sequential action portions, each action portion defining a respective time interval and comprising a plurality of respective vehicle-side actions that are configured to be executed during that time interval;
initiating, in response to the detecting, execution of the predefined base action path beginning with a first one of the sequential action portions;
{para [0149] “According to software implementation, the embodiments such as the procedures and functions described in the specification may be implemented by separate software modules. Each software module may perform one or more functions and operations described in the specification. Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module.”
para [0046] “In the request to intervene step, the automated driving system 100 may request the user (or fallback ready user) who is ready to perform the fallback for a failure situation to take over a driving control (24). However, in a case of level 4 or higher of the automated driving, the driver may not exist, and this step may be performed selectively.”
Para [0045] “The automated driving system 100 may directly perform a change in the driving mode, and generate a request to intervene (RTI) in the automated driving by the driver before triggering the MRM to stop the vehicle (22).”
Where the request to intervene can be considered as a first vehicle side action that is part of the first action portion the MRM can be considered as second vehicle.
Time of the actions are considered as discussed below.
Para [0047] “In addition, when a timeout occurs even though the take-over of the control is requested, the automated driving system 100 may change the mode to the MRM mode (23), and perform the defined MRM operation.”
Para [0116] “In detail, the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle 10, road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time.”
The action portions RTI and MRM both have multiple actions
Para [0086] “As the RTI is generated, the HVI module 130 may display an RTI response interface, requesting the fallback ready user (FRU) to take over the driving control (S70).”
Para [0107-0109] “If no user override is detected (S130), the DCU 160 may receive the response (S132). To initiate the MRM, the automated driving controller 110 may first instruct the hazard lights to turn on to inform the surrounding environment that a failure situation has occurred in the vehicle 10 and there is no driver intervention (S134).
The actuator 120 may turn on the hazard lights to alert the surrounding vehicles 10 of the situation (S136).
Next, the DCU 160 may activate the MRM (S138) and display an MRM mode interface using the HVI module 130 to indicate the activation of the MRM, even if the driver fails to intervene (S140). In level 4 or higher situations where the driver is not essential, the DCU 160 may inform passengers or users that the MRM operation is being performed.”
Where since the hazards coming on occur before activation of the MRM it can be said to be part the RTI action portion.
Para [0110] “When the MRM is activated, the MRM module in the automated driving controller 110 may monitor the mode of the automated driving system 100 and determine the MRM type based on the internal or external environment, as described above. The MRM type may be classified based on the stop situation and may include straight stop, in-lane stop, adjacent lane stop, and shoulder stop.”
Where a MRM shoulder stop requires several vehicle actions including steering and braking actions and possibly accelerator operation.
It should be noted as discussed in the 112(a) rejection applicant’s specification does not have support for each action portion defining a respective time interval.
Additionally as applicant’s specification is devoid of the term predefined thus predefined base action plan is be interpreted as the computing device merely being preloaded with the instructions required to generate a base action plan. Additionally it should be noted that applicant’s specification does not provide any recitation of specific data structures or that the action portions and vehicle actions have been incorporated into any type of data structure.
}
evaluating, by a processor and while execution of at least a portion of the predefined base action path is ongoing, the detected hazardous situation to generate an evaluation result;
{Fig. 3 and Para [0051] “Upon receiving the request for the MRM, the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop.”
}
modifying, based on the evaluation result and while the predefined base action path is executing, the predefined base action path to generate a modified action path, wherein modifying the predefined base action path includes performing one or more modifications selected from a group consisting of:
(i) skipping at least one of the sequential action portions of the predefined base action path;
(ii) skipping at least one of the vehicle-side actions of the predefined base action path:
(iii) changing a duration of at least one of the sequential action portions
(iv) changing a duration of at least one of the vehicle-side actions;
(v) increasing an intensity of at least one respective vehicle-side action contained within one of the sequential action portions; and
(vi) changing a temporal overlap condition between respective time intervals of two or more of the sequential action portions;
executing, in place of a remaining unexecuted portion of the predefined base action path, the modified action path, wherein executing the modified action path includes performing at least one vehicle-control action that modifies operation of the automated driving mode, including by adjusting one or more of a steering control, a braking control, or a longitudinal acceleration control of the vehicle in accordance with the modified action path.
{Fig.3 and Para [0051] “Upon receiving the request for the MRM, the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop.”
Para [0057] “Additionally, the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC.”
Para [0052-0054] “A straight stop may indicate, for example, that in the most urgent situation, braking is performed in the direction the vehicle 10 is currently driving to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require lateral control, acceleration control, or lane change control, but will perform deceleration control for braking.
An in-lane stop may indicate that braking is performed to maintain the lane where the vehicle 10 is currently driving, bringing the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require acceleration or lane change control, but will perform lateral control to maintain the lane and deceleration control for braking.
An adjacent lane stop may indicate that the vehicle 10 leaves the current lane and moves to another safer lane, where braking is then performed to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. In this case, the automated driving system 100 may perform acceleration control to leave the current lane, lane change control to move to another lane, lateral control for lane movement or maintenance, and deceleration control for braking.”
Where if a adjacent lane stop is changed to a straight stop vehicle actions are skipped.
Additionally, the MRM action portion is skipped when the driver does not fail to take control.
Para [0103] “FIG. 7 shows that the RTI may be generated, and the MRM process may be activated based on the RTI even when the driver sets the switch to manual mode using the HVI module 130 (S120), but fails to take over control (S124), or even when the driver performs steering or braking actions using the actuator 120 (S116) and initial driver override is detected (S118), but the driver then fails to take over control (S124).”
}
Yu does not explicitly teach, detecting, by one or more sensors of the vehicle while the vehicle is performing the automated driving mode, a hazardous situation associated with the vehicle;
However, Lu teaches detecting, by one or more sensors of the vehicle while the vehicle is performing the automated driving mode, a hazardous situation associated with the vehicle;
{Para [0098] “The sensor failures may be detected through sensor self tests and sensor electronic monitoring. Both sensor self test and the sensor electronic monitoring are conducted by checking if the measurement from a sensor of interest is within the sensor specifications which are usually defined through the lower and upper bounds and various change rate limitations of the sensor signal. Since it is possible for a specific sensor to have a failure without violating the sensor specification, it may be desirable to conduct in-spec sensor failure check.”
Yu already teaches the automated driving mode
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Lu to detect vehicle faults using a sensor because it allows for more minor faults to be detected as disuccess in Para [0098] “The sensor failures may be detected through sensor self tests and sensor electronic monitoring. Both sensor self test and the sensor electronic monitoring are conducted by checking if the measurement from a sensor of interest is within the sensor specifications which are usually defined through the lower and upper bounds and various change rate limitations of the sensor signal. Since it is possible for a specific sensor to have a failure without violating the sensor specification, it may be desirable to conduct in-spec sensor failure check.”
Regarding claim 2, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein at least one of the vehicle-side action includes at least one of the following actions for warning at least one person located in the vehicle: visual warning, haptic warning, acoustic warning, olfactory warning, an automated intervention in a vehicle behavior of the vehicle.
{Para [0045] “The automated driving system 100 may directly perform a change in the driving mode, and generate a request to intervene (RTI) in the automated driving by the driver before triggering the MRM to stop the vehicle (22).”
Para [0086] “As the RTI is generated, the HVI module 130 may display an RTI response interface, requesting the fallback ready user (FRU) to take over the driving control (S70).”
}
Regarding claim 4, Yu in view of Lu teaches the The method according claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the modifying of the base action path takes place when the evaluation result includes that a detected time period for the detected hazardous situation to occur is less than a time period for executing the entire base action path.
{Para [0054] “An adjacent lane stop may indicate that the vehicle 10 leaves the current lane and moves to another safer lane, where braking is then performed to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. In this case, the automated driving system 100 may perform acceleration control to leave the current lane, lane change control to move to another lane, lateral control for lane movement or maintenance, and deceleration control for braking.”
Para [0052] “A straight stop may indicate, for example, that in the most urgent situation, braking is performed in the direction the vehicle 10 is currently driving to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require lateral control, acceleration control, or lane change control, but will perform deceleration control for braking.”
Where the straight stop can be considered an adjustment over the adjacent lane stop the occurs in the most urgent situation (e.g. a situation where there isn’t enough time to perform an adjacent lane stop)
}
Regarding claim 7, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein one of the vehicle-side actions extend across a plurality of action portions.
{Para [0047-0048] “In addition, when a timeout occurs even though the take-over of the control is requested, the automated driving system 100 may change the mode to the MRM mode (23), and perform the defined MRM operation.
Here, the MRM may include a series of operations of controlling the automated driving system 100 until the vehicle 10 reaches the MRC, and in a MRM situation, the automated driving system 100 may perform operations of determining a MRM type, informing the driver that the MRM operation is performed, or the like. Even in the MRM mode, the control may be given over to the driver based on whether the driver intervenes (26).”
Para [0058] “As described above, the automated driving system 100 may also request the fallback ready user to intervene during the MRM operation and directly hand over control to the fallback ready user (26).”
}
Regarding claim 11, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein hazardous situation comprises at least one of the following hazardous situations for the vehicle that require an adjustment of the base action path: malfunction of the driving assistance system of the vehicle, and recognizing a traffic situation for the vehicle that can no longer be safely managed by the driving assistance system of the vehicle.
{ Abstract “The present invention relates to an automated driving system for switching between automated driving mode and manual driving mode in an automated driving situation, and a fallback method for an automated driving failure situation in the automated driving system. According to the present invention, the method comprises the steps of predicting whether, on a route a vehicle is traveling, the vehicle will deviate from an operational design domain (ODD) in which automated driving is possible; and when deviation is predicted, performing a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) process for controlling the vehicle to respond to an automated driving failure situation at a deviation point. According to the present invention, the stability of the automated driving system in emergency situations may be increased, and by proposing a stable mode-switching method for the automated driving system, the best response method may be provided.”
Para [0034] “However, these internal components of the automated driving controller 110 may be integrated and operated as a single system. Consequently, the entire automated driving system 100 may become inoperative due to a failure in a communication line related to the sensor or a power supply issue.”
Para [0043] “The automated driving system 100 according to this embodiment described hereinabove is to provide a safe fallback by using an independent structure in a case where an emergency situation occurs in the automated driving due to a failure in the system or the problem in the power or the communication network.”
}
Regarding claim 13, it recites A non-transitory machine-readable data carrier having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Additionally Yu teaches non-transitory machine-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program including machine-readable instructions that are executable by a computer and that, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to perform a method
{Para [0148-00149] “According to hardware implementation, the embodiments described herein may be implemented using at least one of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or electrical units for performing other functions. In some cases, the embodiments described in the specification may be implemented by a control module itself.
According to software implementation, the embodiments such as the procedures and functions described in the specification may be implemented by separate software modules. Each software module may perform one or more functions and operations described in the specification. Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module.”
}
Regarding claim 14, it recites A system having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Additionally Yu teaches A system comprising:
a processing system including one or more computers;
{Para [0148-0149] “According to hardware implementation, the embodiments described herein may be implemented using at least one of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or electrical units for performing other functions. In some cases, the embodiments described in the specification may be implemented by a control module itself.
According to software implementation, the embodiments such as the procedures and functions described in the specification may be implemented by separate software modules. Each software module may perform one or more functions and operations described in the specification. Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module.”
}
one or more sensors;
{Para [0029] “The sensor unit 150 detects the mode and external environment of the vehicle 10 and acquires surrounding information for automated driving. It may include a camera, radar unit, infrared (IR) sensor, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, acoustic sensor, or similar devices.”
}
a memory
{Para [0148-0149] “According to hardware implementation, the embodiments described herein may be implemented using at least one of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DSPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or electrical units for performing other functions. In some cases, the embodiments described in the specification may be implemented by a control module itself.
According to software implementation, the embodiments such as the procedures and functions described in the specification may be implemented by separate software modules. Each software module may perform one or more functions and operations described in the specification. Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module.”
}
Regarding claim 15, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the modifying includes the skipping of at one of the sequential action portions of the predefined base action path.
{It is implied the MRM action portion is skipped when the driver does not fail to take control.
Para [0103] “FIG. 7 shows that the RTI may be generated, and the MRM process may be activated based on the RTI even when the driver sets the switch to manual mode using the HVI module 130 (S120), but fails to take over control (S124), or even when the driver performs steering or braking actions using the actuator 120 (S116) and initial driver override is detected (S118), but the driver then fails to take over control (S124).”
}
Regarding claim 16, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the modifying includes the skipping of the at least one of the vehicle-side actions of the predefined base action path.
{ Fig.3 and Para [0051] “Upon receiving the request for the MRM, the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop.”
Para [0057] “Additionally, the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC.”
Para [0052-0054] “A straight stop may indicate, for example, that in the most urgent situation, braking is performed in the direction the vehicle 10 is currently driving to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require lateral control, acceleration control, or lane change control, but will perform deceleration control for braking.
An in-lane stop may indicate that braking is performed to maintain the lane where the vehicle 10 is currently driving, bringing the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require acceleration or lane change control, but will perform lateral control to maintain the lane and deceleration control for braking.
An adjacent lane stop may indicate that the vehicle 10 leaves the current lane and moves to another safer lane, where braking is then performed to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. In this case, the automated driving system 100 may perform acceleration control to leave the current lane, lane change control to move to another lane, lateral control for lane movement or maintenance, and deceleration control for braking.”
Where if a adjacent lane stop is changed to a straight stop vehicle actions are skipped.
}
Regarding claim 17, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 1. Yu further teaches wherein the modifying includes the changing of the duration of the at least one of the sequential action portions.
{ Fig.3 and Para [0051] “Upon receiving the request for the MRM, the MRM module in the automated driving system 100 may monitor the system's mode (32) and determine the MRM type by identifying the vehicle's internal environment and external factors, such as a safe zone situation, based on the failure state or severity of the failure (33). The MRM module may classify the MRM type based on the stop situation into straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop.”
Para [0057] “Additionally, the determined MRM type may be flexibly changed based on changes in the internal or external environment, and the automated driving system 100 may execute the MRM operation based on the determined type (34). When the vehicle 10 stops based on the finally determined type, it may reach a mode where the risk is minimized to the MRC.”
Para [0052-0054] “A straight stop may indicate, for example, that in the most urgent situation, braking is performed in the direction the vehicle 10 is currently driving to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require lateral control, acceleration control, or lane change control, but will perform deceleration control for braking.
An in-lane stop may indicate that braking is performed to maintain the lane where the vehicle 10 is currently driving, bringing the vehicle 10 to a stop. Therefore, the automated driving system 100 may not require acceleration or lane change control, but will perform lateral control to maintain the lane and deceleration control for braking.
An adjacent lane stop may indicate that the vehicle 10 leaves the current lane and moves to another safer lane, where braking is then performed to bring the vehicle 10 to a stop. In this case, the automated driving system 100 may perform acceleration control to leave the current lane, lane change control to move to another lane, lateral control for lane movement or maintenance, and deceleration control for braking.”
Where if a adjacent lane stop is changed to a straight stop vehicle actions are skipped.
Where by skipping vehicle actions the total action portion has been shortened.
}
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20250065919 A1, hereinafter known as Yu) in view of Iwasa (US 20190382009 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu in view of Lu teaches The method according to claim 5
Yu does not teach, wherein different ones of the action portions differ with respect to a response of the driver assistance system when a driver in the vehicle reacts to the at least one first and second vehicle-side action.
However, Iwasa teaches wherein the first and second action portions differ with respect to a response of a driver assistance system when a driver in the vehicle reacts to the vehicle-side action.
{Para [0077-0080] “FIG. 6 is a diagram conceptually illustrating a relation between the operation amount for the driving operator 80 and the amounts of control of corresponding devices in gain-reduction driving. The amounts of control of corresponding devices, for example, are a degree of opening of a throttle or a conduction current flowing in a motor with respect to the operation amount of an acceleration pedal (a degree of acceleration opening), a brake torque with respect to the operation amount of the brake pedal, a conduction current flowing in an electric motor with respect to the operation amount of the steering wheel, and the like. In the drawing, although each control line is represented as a straight line, the control line may be a curved line or have discrete values.
In the drawing, slopes of control lines L-1 to L-3 correspond to control gains. The control line L-1 illustrates a relation between the operation amount and the control amount in a period other than a predetermined period (hereinafter, referred to as a normal time). In contrast to this, the control line L-2 illustrates a relation between the operation amount and the control amount in a predetermined period after output of a weak handover request. In addition, the control line L-3 illustrates a relation between the operation amount and the control amount in a predetermined period after output of a strong handover request.
As illustrated in the drawing, the control line L-2 is acquired by setting the control gain to be lower than that of the control line L-1, and the control line L-3 is acquired by setting the control gain to be lower than that of the control line L-2. During execution of automated driving, there are cases in which a driver is sitting on a seat with hands off the steering wheel or a leg away from a pedal. From this state, when such a driving operator 80 is to be operated in response to a handover request, there are cases in which an unintentional sudden force may be applied, and the operation amount becomes large. Such a tendency is assumed to become strong in a case in which a strong handover request is output.
Accordingly, the switching controller 124 sets a control gain to be lower in a predetermined period after outputting a handover request than at a normal time and further lowers the control gain in a case in which a strong handover request is output. In this way, in a case in which an excessive operation is performed when switching from automated driving to manual driving is performed, occurrence of an inappropriate behavior in the vehicle M can be inhibited. In addition, the brake device 210 may be excluded from a target for which a control gain is lowered. The reason for this is that an operation of avoiding an obstacle by sudden braking is prioritized.”
Where the response of the vehicle to driver input changes after a predetermined time when change in stimulus occurs
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yu to incorporate the teachings of Iwasa to change driving gains based on type of stimulus because “In this way, in a case in which an excessive operation is performed when switching from automated driving to manual driving is performed, occurrence of an inappropriate behavior in the vehicle M can be inhibited. In addition, the brake device 210 may be excluded from a target for which a control gain is lowered. The reason for this is that an operation of avoiding an obstacle by sudden braking is prioritized”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: MacGregor et al. (US 12455569 B1) teaches “ At operation 204, the monitoring component 116 may determine one or more constraint(s) for operating the vehicle while the condition is present. In some examples, the one or more constraint(s) may be determined by the monitoring component 116 based at least in part on the condition, including based on a type of the condition, a cost associated with the condition, or the like. In some examples, the one or more constraint(s) may include a period of time (e.g., minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, etc.) that the vehicle can continue operating. That is, the vehicle may be required, by the constraint, to pull over (e.g., into a non-traffic lane) or otherwise cease from operating in a traffic lane prior to an expiration of the period of time. In some examples, a length of the period of time may be determined by the monitoring component 116 based on the condition and/or the magnitude of the cost associated with the condition. For instance, conditions that are more severe may be given a shorter period of time and conditions that are less severe may be given a longer period of time. In some examples, combinations of different conditions may cause the period of time to be shortened. For instance, if a period of time was determined at a first time for a first condition and then a second condition is detected, the period of time may be shortened, in some examples. In examples, the one or more constraint(s) may also include operational constraints (e.g., maximum velocity, maximum acceleration rates, maximum deceleration rates or maximum brake force, maximum turning angle, or the like), environmental constraints (e.g., only operate during daylight hours, only operate if weather is clear, etc.), traffic-related constraints (e.g., only operate during low traffic congestion periods), and/or the like. In some examples, certain conditions may bring about multiple different constraints. For instance, if the condition is that the brakes of the vehicle need repair or maintenance, then the constraints may be a period of time, a maximum speed of the vehicle (e.g., do not exceed speed), a maximum braking pressure or deceleration rate, an increased following distance, an earlier stopping distance, and/or the like.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4296. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00.
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 Lee can be reached at (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.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights