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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 08/28/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0112531 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 08/06/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0104458 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures appear to have foreign lettering/markings in various locations of the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
The ordering of the claims will be corrected upon allowance and do not need to be adjusted at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji et. al. (US 2021/0229658), herein Tsuji.
Regarding claim 1:
An apparatus (The vehicle control system 1 includes an information obtaining part 30 and a vehicle control apparatus 10 [0050]) for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (The vehicle control system 1 controls the vehicle in the assisted driving and in the automated driving [0049]; the evacuation traveling control is the automated driving [0077]), the apparatus comprising:
at least one sensor (the information obtaining part 30 includes multiple cameras 31, multiple radars 32, a location sensor 33, a vehicle state sensor 34, a passenger condition sensor 35, an external communication unit 36, and a driving operation sensor 37 [0054]) configured to detect a surrounding environment of the vehicle (The multiple cameras 31 obtain image data that show vehicle surroundings, by photographing surroundings of the vehicle, including an on-road obstacle [0056]), and generate surrounding environment information (the vehicle surrounding recognizing unit 111 performs image processing on an image that is obtained by the camera 31, to generate two-dimensional map data showing a region where the vehicle can move, such as a travel road [0082]); and
a processor (the control section 100 may include a processor 835 [0076]) configured to generate vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during autonomous driving of the vehicle (The information of the state of the vehicle, which is obtained by the vehicle state sensor 34, is transmitted to the vehicle control apparatus 10 [0064]) and control the autonomous driving of the vehicle (The vehicle control apparatus 10 controls each component of the actuator 40 and of the vehicle control system 1 on the basis of information that are obtained by each component of the vehicle control system 1 [0072]),
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on at least one of the surrounding environment information (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.) or the vehicle state information (The passenger condition estimating unit 114 estimates condition of a driver on the basis of output of the passenger condition sensor 35, for example, in terms of health status, feeling, or posture of the driver. For example, the passenger condition estimating unit 114 generates data that shows movement of a driver, from output of the passenger condition sensor 35, by using a learning model generated by deep learning. In this example, the passenger condition estimating unit 114 detects an abnormality in physical condition of a driver [0089]), whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed (fig. 2A, S11 - YES),
determine, based on a determination that the minimal risk maneuver is needed, a minimal risk maneuver type (searching for and setting an emergency stop location is executed in the next step S30 (refer to FIG. 2C) [0196]) of a plurality of minimal risk maneuver types of the vehicle (In step 331, the analysis list L is read from the storage 20, and a region where the vehicle can be brought to an emergency stop, is extracted by using the analysis list L. This region is referred to as a “stoppable region”, hereinafter. Specifically, for example, a road shoulder region having a predetermined width or greater and continuously having the predetermined width or greater for a predetermined distance or greater, is set as the stoppable region, among regions with the evaluation value of “A” to “C” in the analysis list. For example, the road shoulder region having the predetermined width or greater may be limited to the region having the evaluation value of “A” or “B”, or may include all regions having the evaluation value of “A” to “C”. [0139]) and a target point where the vehicle will stop (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]), and
control, based on the determined minimal risk maneuver type and the target point, the vehicle to stop at the target point (The control section is further configured to, in making the vehicle automatically stop in a state in which the vehicle travels in a second travel lane that is separated from a road shoulder region more than a first travel lane adjacent to the road shoulder region, execute the following processes: a process of searching for a stop location where the vehicle is to stop, on the basis of the road shoulder region information, to set the target location at the stop location, and generating an evacuation path to the stop location as the target path; a process of decelerating the vehicle to a predetermined speed or lower; a process of making the vehicle change from the second travel lane to a free space of the first travel lane, on the basis of the vehicle surrounding information; and a process of making the vehicle travel at the predetermined speed or lower in the first travel lane and making the vehicle enter the stop location from the first travel lane and stop at the stop location [0008]).
Regarding claim 2:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
determine a maximum distance or a maximum time that can be driven in a minimum risk maneuver state (limit at least one of an elapsed time or a travel distance after the detection of the abnormality in physical condition, in accordance with the degree of the abnormality in physical condition; and set the stop location within the limitation [0010]),
identify stoppable areas that can be reached (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]; In step S15, the stop location determining unit 131 stets a candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space. Specifically, the stop location determining unit 131 sets a start point Ps and an end point Pe of the candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space [0117]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]),
classify the identified stoppable areas (In step S23, evaluation of the width of the road shoulder region, which is hereinafter also referred to as “road shoulder width evaluation”, is executed. FIGS. 5 and 7A show examples in which each point Px is evaluated by three stages of “A”, “B”, and “C”, depending on the width of the road shoulder region. [0129]) into full-shoulder stoppable areas (The evaluation “A” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “whole width of the vehicle+0.5 meters or more”. The evaluation “B” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “whole width of the vehicle+less than 0.5 meters” [0129]) or half-shoulder stoppable areas (The evaluation “C” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “less than the whole width of the vehicle” [0129]),
determine at least one of route complexity values (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]) of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (the stoppable region R24 is recognized, and the determination results in YES in step S81, when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241]),
determine, based on at least one of the determined route complexity values (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]), whether or not stopping is possible at the full-shoulder stoppable areas (when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241]),
determine, based on stopping not being possible at the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 3D, S85 - YES), at least one of route complexity values or stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (in step S26, the evaluation value relating to the dynamic evaluation of a point Px ahead of the current location of the own vehicle H is updated in the analysis list L. FIG. 7D shows an updated analysis list L2. In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]; Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 is performed in a manner substantially the same as that in making a stop in the stoppable region R24 in «Evacuation Traveling Control (3)», and therefore, descriptions thereof are omitted herein [0255]), and
determine, based on at least one of the route complexity values or the stopping risk values (fig. 3S, S91) of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 [0255]), the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S93 or S99) and the target point (stoppable region R25 [0255]; In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane. The method of determining the lane in which the own vehicle H is to stop, and the method of determining a stop location in the selected travel lane, are not specifically limited. [0267]).
Regarding claim 3:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
determine a maximum distance or a maximum time that can be driven in a minimum risk maneuver state (limit at least one of an elapsed time or a travel distance after the detection of the abnormality in physical condition, in accordance with the degree of the abnormality in physical condition; and set the stop location within the limitation [0010]),
search for stoppable areas that can be reached (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]; In step S15, the stop location determining unit 131 stets a candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space. Specifically, the stop location determining unit 131 sets a start point Ps and an end point Pe of the candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space [0117]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120])
determine at least one of route complexity values (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]) of the stoppable areas (the stoppable region R24 is recognized, and the determination results in YES in step S81, when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241])
determine, based on at least one of the route complexity values or the stopping risk values (fig. 3S, S84 and S91) of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 [0255]), the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S93 or S99) and the target point (fig. 6, stoppable regions R21-R25; In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane. The method of determining the lane in which the own vehicle H is to stop, and the method of determining a stop location in the selected travel lane, are not specifically limited. [0267])
Regarding claim 4:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
identify full-shoulder stoppable areas that can be reached (in the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24 [0143]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]),
determine route complexity values of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]),
determine a full-shoulder stoppable area (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority, which is the valuation value of “A” in this case [0143]), of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas, as the target point, wherein a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (The risk calculator 133 may calculate a collision risk value for collision risk by multiplying a first risk value and a second risk value together. The first risk value is set for a candidate of a location where the own vehicle H stops, which is hereinafter referred to as a “stop location candidate”. The second risk value is set for movement of the own vehicle H until the own vehicle H reaches the stop location candidate. A specific method of calculating the collision risk value will be described later [0151]), and wherein the full-shoulder stoppable area has the lowest route complexity value among the route complexity values of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority, which is the valuation value of “A” in this case [0143]), and
determine a full-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (in the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24, as shown in FIG. 7A [0143]).
Regarding claim 5:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on a failure to identify a full-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S85 – YES; the process in which the collision risk of collision with an obstacle on a road is the predetermined degree or higher, is interrupted, and a stop location is set in order to execute the operation in the process subsequent to the interrupted process. This enables changing to a stop location and an evacuation path by the use of which an emergency stop is safely performed, before the collision risk is actualized due to change in traffic flow after the evacuation path to the emergency stop location is once set [0257]), search for half-shoulder stoppable areas (In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]),
based on an identification of half-shoulder stoppable areas where route complexity values are lower than the route complexity values of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 2C, S38) and the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas being lower than a threshold risk (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), determine a half-shoulder stoppable area, where a stopping risk value is the lowest among the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location. [0269]), as the target point and determine a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (In step S31 in FIG. 2C, only the region R25 is extracted as the stoppable region [0246]), and
based on a failure to identify a half-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than the route complexity values of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), determine an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 6:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on a failure to identify a full-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S85 – YES; the process in which the collision risk of collision with an obstacle on a road is the predetermined degree or higher, is interrupted, and a stop location is set in order to execute the operation in the process subsequent to the interrupted process. This enables changing to a stop location and an evacuation path by the use of which an emergency stop is safely performed, before the collision risk is actualized due to change in traffic flow after the evacuation path to the emergency stop location is once set [0257]), search for half-shoulder stoppable areas (In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]),
based on an identification of half-shoulder stoppable areas where route complexity values are lower than or equal to the threshold value (fig. 2C, S38) and the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas being lower than a threshold risk (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), determine a half-shoulder stoppable area, where a stopping risk value is the lowest among the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location. [0269]), as the target point and determine a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (In step S31 in FIG. 2C, only the region R25 is extracted as the stoppable region [0246]), and
based on a failure to identify a half-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to the threshold value (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), determine an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 7:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
identify full-shoulder stoppable areas and half-shoulder stoppable areas that can be reached (In step S32, it is determined that whether there is a stoppable region between the current location of the own vehicle H, or the start point Ps in the case in which the current location is before the start point Ps, and the end point Pe. In the example in FIG. 4, in which the stoppable region R11 is extracted, the determination results in YES in step S32, and the control flow advances to the next step S33. Also, in the example in FIG. 6, in which the stoppable regions R21 to R25 are extracted [0141]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]),
determine route complexity values and stopping risk values of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas and half-shoulder stoppable areas (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]), and
based on a failure to identify a stoppable area where a stopping risk value is lower than a threshold risk and a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), select an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 8:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on an identification of stoppable areas where stopping risk values are lower than a threshold risk (fig. 2C, S38) and route complexity values are lower than or equal to a threshold value (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), select a stoppable area where a route complexity value is the lowest among the route complexity values of the stoppable areas where a stopping risk value is lower than the threshold risk (fig. 3D, S93; Thus, the emergency stop control part 130 starts control for making the own vehicle H enter the stoppable region R22 and stop at the emergency stop location in step S93. [0186]),
based on the selected stoppable area being a full-shoulder stoppable area (n the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24, as shown in FIG. 7A [0143]), determine a full-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 2C, S35 or S38) and determine the selected stoppable area as the target point (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority [0143]), and
based on the selected stoppable area not being a full-shoulder stoppable area (In step S26, the evaluation value relating to the dynamic evaluation of a point Px ahead of the current location of the own vehicle H is updated in the analysis list L. FIG. 7D shows an updated analysis list L2. In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]), determine a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 2C, S35; The evaluation “C” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “less than the whole width of the vehicle”. [0129]) and determine the selected stoppable area as the target point (Then, in the next step S36, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R25 [0247]).
Regarding claim 9:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to, based on a number of intersections to pass (For the case in which the own vehicle H passes through a crosswalk or an intersection, the second risk value is set relatively high [0273]), a number of left turns (the second risk value is set relatively higher for a case of turning left or right at an intersection than for a case of straightly advancing an intersection [0273]), a number of right turns (the second risk value is set relatively higher for a case of turning left or right at an intersection than for a case of straightly advancing an intersection [0273]), and a distance to a destination (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]), determine a route complexity value of a full-shoulder stoppable area or determine a route complexity value of a half-shoulder stoppable area (The destination path generator 132 generates an evacuation path to the emergency stop location, which is set by the stop location determining unit 131. Specifically, the destination path generator 132 executes processing similar to the path generation performed by the path generator 116. Specifically, the destination path generator 132 generates multiple path candidates on the basis of output of the vehicle surrounding recognizing unit 111 [0148]; The risk calculator 133 may calculate a collision risk value for collision risk by multiplying a first risk value and a second risk value together. The first risk value is set for a candidate of a location where the own vehicle H stops, which is hereinafter referred to as a “stop location candidate”. The second risk value is set for movement of the own vehicle H until the own vehicle H reaches the stop location candidate. A specific method of calculating the collision risk value will be described later. [0151]).
Regarding claim 11:
Tsuji teaches:
A method performed by a processor (The computer readable program instructions that may implement the systems and methods described in this disclosure may be provided to one or more processors [0293]) for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (The vehicle control system 1 controls the vehicle in the assisted driving and in the automated driving [0049]; the evacuation traveling control is the automated driving [0077]), the method comprising:
acquiring, based on autonomous driving of the vehicle, at least one of surrounding environment information (The multiple cameras 31 obtain image data that show vehicle surroundings, by photographing surroundings of the vehicle, including an on-road obstacle [0056]) or vehicle state information (The information of the state of the vehicle, which is obtained by the vehicle state sensor 34, is transmitted to the vehicle control apparatus 10 [0064]);
determining, based on at least one of the surrounding environment information (the examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.) or the vehicle state information (The passenger condition estimating unit 114 estimates condition of a driver on the basis of output of the passenger condition sensor 35, for example, in terms of health status, feeling, or posture of the driver. For example, the passenger condition estimating unit 114 generates data that shows movement of a driver, from output of the passenger condition sensor 35, by using a learning model generated by deep learning. In this example, the passenger condition estimating unit 114 detects an abnormality in physical condition of a driver [0089]), whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed (fig. 2A, S11 - YES);
determining, based on a determination that the minimal risk maneuver is needed, a minimal risk maneuver type (searching for and setting an emergency stop location is executed in the next step S30 (refer to FIG. 2C) [0196]) of a plurality of minimal risk maneuver types of the vehicle (In step 331, the analysis list L is read from the storage 20, and a region where the vehicle can be brought to an emergency stop, is extracted by using the analysis list L. This region is referred to as a “stoppable region”, hereinafter. Specifically, for example, a road shoulder region having a predetermined width or greater and continuously having the predetermined width or greater for a predetermined distance or greater, is set as the stoppable region, among regions with the evaluation value of “A” to “C” in the analysis list. For example, the road shoulder region having the predetermined width or greater may be limited to the region having the evaluation value of “A” or “B”, or may include all regions having the evaluation value of “A” to “C”. [0139]) and a target point where the vehicle will stop (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]); and
controlling, based on the determined minimal risk maneuver type and the target point, the vehicle to stop at the target point (The control section is further configured to, in making the vehicle automatically stop in a state in which the vehicle travels in a second travel lane that is separated from a road shoulder region more than a first travel lane adjacent to the road shoulder region, execute the following processes: a process of searching for a stop location where the vehicle is to stop, on the basis of the road shoulder region information, to set the target location at the stop location, and generating an evacuation path to the stop location as the target path; a process of decelerating the vehicle to a predetermined speed or lower; a process of making the vehicle change from the second travel lane to a free space of the first travel lane, on the basis of the vehicle surrounding information; and a process of making the vehicle travel at the predetermined speed or lower in the first travel lane and making the vehicle enter the stop location from the first travel lane and stop at the stop location [0008]).
Regarding claim 12:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
determining a maximum distance or a maximum time that can be driven in a minimum risk maneuver state (limit at least one of an elapsed time or a travel distance after the detection of the abnormality in physical condition, in accordance with the degree of the abnormality in physical condition; and set the stop location within the limitation [0010]);
searching for stoppable areas that can be reached (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]; In step S15, the stop location determining unit 131 stets a candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space. Specifically, the stop location determining unit 131 sets a start point Ps and an end point Pe of the candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space [0117]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]);
classifying the searched stoppable areas into full-shoulder stoppable areas (In step S23, evaluation of the width of the road shoulder region, which is hereinafter also referred to as “road shoulder width evaluation”, is executed. FIGS. 5 and 7A show examples in which each point Px is evaluated by three stages of “A”, “B”, and “C”, depending on the width of the road shoulder region. [0129]) into full-shoulder stoppable areas (The evaluation “A” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “whole width of the vehicle+0.5 meters or more”. The evaluation “B” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “whole width of the vehicle+less than 0.5 meters” [0129]) or half-shoulder stoppable areas (The evaluation “C” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “less than the whole width of the vehicle” [0129]);
determining at least one of route complexity values (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]) of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (the stoppable region R24 is recognized, and the determination results in YES in step S81, when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241]);
determining, based on at least one of the determined route complexity values (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative.) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]), whether or not stopping is possible at the full-shoulder stoppable areas (when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241])
determining, based on stopping not being possible at the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 3D, S85 - YES), at least one of route complexity values or stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (in step S26, the evaluation value relating to the dynamic evaluation of a point Px ahead of the current location of the own vehicle H is updated in the analysis list L. FIG. 7D shows an updated analysis list L2. In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]; Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 is performed in a manner substantially the same as that in making a stop in the stoppable region R24 in «Evacuation Traveling Control (3)», and therefore, descriptions thereof are omitted herein [0255]), and
determining, based on at least one of the route complexity values and the stopping risk values(fig. 3S, S91) of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 [0255]), the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S93 or S99) and the target point (stoppable region R25 [0255]; In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane. The method of determining the lane in which the own vehicle H is to stop, and the method of determining a stop location in the selected travel lane, are not specifically limited. [0267]).
Regarding claim 13:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
determining a maximum distance or a maximum time that can be driven in a minimum risk maneuver state (limit at least one of an elapsed time or a travel distance after the detection of the abnormality in physical condition, in accordance with the degree of the abnormality in physical condition; and set the stop location within the limitation [0010]);
searching for stoppable areas that can be reached (stoppable regions R21 to R25, as shown in FIG. 6, are extracted in step S31 [0140]; In step S15, the stop location determining unit 131 stets a candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space. Specifically, the stop location determining unit 131 sets a start point Ps and an end point Pe of the candidate detection area for detecting an evacuation space [0117]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]);
determining at least one of route complexity values (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]) or stopping risk values (“collision risk” [0241]) of the stoppable areas (the stoppable region R24 is recognized, and the determination results in YES in step S81, when the own vehicle H reaches the location H7. Then, in consideration of the other vehicles Jb stopping in the stoppable region R24, the determination results in YES in step S85. That is, in response to entering the stoppable region R24, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the collision risk with respect to the other vehicles Jb, as being the predetermined degree or higher, whereby the emergency stop control part 130 interrupts the first-travel-lane traveling process but executes resetting of the stop location [0241]); and
determining, based on at least one of the route complexity values or the stopping risk values (fig. 3S, S84 and S91) of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (Emergency stop in the stoppable region R25 [0255]), the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S93 or S99) and the target point (fig. 6, stoppable regions R21-R25; In step S99, the emergency stop control part 130 makes the own vehicle H stop in the travel lane. The method of determining the lane in which the own vehicle H is to stop, and the method of determining a stop location in the selected travel lane, are not specifically limited. [0267]).
Regarding claim 14:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
searching for full-shoulder stoppable areas that can be reached (in the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24 [0143]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]);
determining route complexity values of the searched full-shoulder stoppable areas (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]);
determining a full-shoulder stoppable area (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority, which is the valuation value of “A” in this case [0143]), of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas, as the target point, wherein a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (The risk calculator 133 may calculate a collision risk value for collision risk by multiplying a first risk value and a second risk value together. The first risk value is set for a candidate of a location where the own vehicle H stops, which is hereinafter referred to as a “stop location candidate”. The second risk value is set for movement of the own vehicle H until the own vehicle H reaches the stop location candidate. A specific method of calculating the collision risk value will be described later [0151]), and wherein the full-shoulder stoppable area has the lowest route complexity value among the route complexity values of the identified full-shoulder stoppable areas (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority, which is the valuation value of “A” in this case [0143]); and
determining a full-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (in the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24, as shown in FIG. 7A [0143]).
Regarding claim 15:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on a failure to identify a full-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S85 – YES; the process in which the collision risk of collision with an obstacle on a road is the predetermined degree or higher, is interrupted, and a stop location is set in order to execute the operation in the process subsequent to the interrupted process. This enables changing to a stop location and an evacuation path by the use of which an emergency stop is safely performed, before the collision risk is actualized due to change in traffic flow after the evacuation path to the emergency stop location is once set [0257]), search for half-shoulder stoppable areas (In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]); and
performing one of:
based on an identification of half-shoulder stoppable areas where route complexity values are lower than the route complexity values of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 2C, S38) and the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas being lower than a threshold risk (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), determine a half-shoulder stoppable area, where a stopping risk value is the lowest among the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location. [0269]), as the target point and determine a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (In step S31 in FIG. 2C, only the region R25 is extracted as the stoppable region [0246]) or
based on a failure to identify a half-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than the route complexity values of the full-shoulder stoppable areas (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), determining an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 16:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on a failure to identify a full-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S85 – YES; the process in which the collision risk of collision with an obstacle on a road is the predetermined degree or higher, is interrupted, and a stop location is set in order to execute the operation in the process subsequent to the interrupted process. This enables changing to a stop location and an evacuation path by the use of which an emergency stop is safely performed, before the collision risk is actualized due to change in traffic flow after the evacuation path to the emergency stop location is once set [0257]), searching for half-shoulder stoppable areas (In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]);
performing one of:
based on an identification of half-shoulder stoppable areas where route complexity values are lower than or equal to the threshold value (fig. 2C, S38) and the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas being lower than a threshold risk (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), determine a half-shoulder stoppable area, where a stopping risk value is the lowest among the stopping risk values of the half-shoulder stoppable areas (The risk calculator 133 calculates the collision risk value with respect to each of the stop location candidates. Then, the emergency stop control part 130 determines the stop location candidate having a low collision risk value, which is calculated by the risk calculator 133, as the stop location. [0269]), as the target point and determine a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (In step S31 in FIG. 2C, only the region R25 is extracted as the stoppable region [0246]); or
based on a failure to identify a half-shoulder stoppable area where a route complexity value is lower than or equal to the threshold value (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), determining an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 17:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
searching for full-shoulder stoppable areas and half-shoulder stoppable areas that can be reached (In step S32, it is determined that whether there is a stoppable region between the current location of the own vehicle H, or the start point Ps in the case in which the current location is before the start point Ps, and the end point Pe. In the example in FIG. 4, in which the stoppable region R11 is extracted, the determination results in YES in step S32, and the control flow advances to the next step S33. Also, in the example in FIG. 6, in which the stoppable regions R21 to R25 are extracted [0141]) within the maximum distance (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]) or the maximum time (The method of setting the predetermined time period is not specifically limited, but, for example, it is set in accordance with the travel scene. Specifically, the end point Pe is set, e.g., at a point where the vehicle travels for 60 seconds from the start point Ps on an ordinary road, or at a point where the vehicle travels for 180 seconds from the start point Ps on an expressway [0120]);
determining route complexity values and stopping risk values of the searched full-shoulder stoppable areas and half-shoulder stoppable areas (On the basis of the path cost added to each of the multiple travel paths, the destination path generator 132 selects a travel path that is safe and shortest to the emergency stop location, from the multiple travel paths, as an evacuation path to the emergency stop location [0148]); and
based on a failure to identify a stoppable area where a stopping risk value is lower than a threshold risk and a route complexity value is lower than or equal to a threshold value (fig. 3D, S92 - YES), selecting an in-lane stop or a straight stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 3D, S99).
Regarding claim 18:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 17, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
based on an identification of stoppable areas where stopping risk values are lower than a threshold risk (fig. 2C, S38) and route complexity values are lower than or equal to a threshold value (Fig. 3D, S85 – NO & S92 - NO), selecting a stoppable area where a route complexity value is the lowest among the route complexity values of the stoppable areas where a stopping risk value is lower than the threshold risk (fig. 3D, S93; Thus, the emergency stop control part 130 starts control for making the own vehicle H enter the stoppable region R22 and stop at the emergency stop location in step S93. [0186]); and
performing one of:
based on the selected stoppable area being a full-shoulder stoppable area (in the example in FIG. 6, in which there are two stoppable regions having the evaluation value of “A”, that is, the stoppable regions R22 and R24, as shown in FIG. 7A [0143]), determining a full-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 2C, S35 or S38) and determine the selected stoppable area as the target point (In step S38, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R22, because the stoppable region R22 is the closest region where the vehicle can stop at the time this control process is executed, among the stoppable regions having the same priority [0143]),; or
based on the selected stoppable area not being a full-shoulder stoppable area (In step S26, the evaluation value relating to the dynamic evaluation of a point Px ahead of the current location of the own vehicle H is updated in the analysis list L. FIG. 7D shows an updated analysis list L2. In FIG. 7D, “0” is set for the region R24, as a result of evaluating the quasi-dynamic obstacle. This results in setting “0” for the region R24 as an evaluation value of the road shoulder evaluation. In this case, the evaluation values of the stoppable region R25 and the restricted region RN are not changed. [0244]), determining a half-shoulder stop as the minimal risk maneuver type (fig. 2C, S35; The evaluation “C” means that the width of the road shoulder region is “less than the whole width of the vehicle”. [0129]) and determine the selected stoppable area as the target point (Then, in the next step S36, an emergency stop location is set in the stoppable region R25 [0247]).
Regarding claim 19:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
wherein a route complexity value of a full-shoulder stoppable area or a route complexity value of a half-shoulder stoppable area is determined (The destination path generator 132 generates an evacuation path to the emergency stop location, which is set by the stop location determining unit 131. Specifically, the destination path generator 132 executes processing similar to the path generation performed by the path generator 116. Specifically, the destination path generator 132 generates multiple path candidates on the basis of output of the vehicle surrounding recognizing unit 111 [0148]; The risk calculator 133 may calculate a collision risk value for collision risk by multiplying a first risk value and a second risk value together. The first risk value is set for a candidate of a location where the own vehicle H stops, which is hereinafter referred to as a “stop location candidate”. The second risk value is set for movement of the own vehicle H until the own vehicle H reaches the stop location candidate. A specific method of calculating the collision risk value will be described later. [0151]) based on a number of intersections to pass(For the case in which the own vehicle H passes through a crosswalk or an intersection, the second risk value is set relatively high [0273]), a number of left turns (the second risk value is set relatively higher for a case of turning left or right at an intersection than for a case of straightly advancing an intersection [0273]), a number of right turns (the second risk value is set relatively higher for a case of turning left or right at an intersection than for a case of straightly advancing an intersection [0273]), and a distance to a destination (the distance or the travel time to the end point Pe may be a fixed value, or the value may be changed depending on type, severity, and urgency, of the abnormality of the physical condition of the driver [0121]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et. al. (US 2021/0229658), herein Tsuji in view of Tam et. al. (US 2024/0375646), herein Tam.
Regarding claim 10:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to, based on a size of a stoppable area (“road shoulder width evaluation”, is executed. FIGS. 5 and 7A show examples in which each point Px is evaluated by three stages of “A”, “B”, and “C”, depending on the width of the road shoulder region [0129]), whether an area is a stopping prohibited area (existence of a road sign or a road marking for showing prohibition of parking and stopping [0130]), [maximum speed information of a road], and traffic flow information (speed of on-road obstacles, such as other vehicle J, in front of the own vehicle H and obliquely forward on a road shoulder side, obliquely rearward on a road shoulder side, and rearward of the own vehicle H, on the basis of output of the camera 31, the radar 32, and/or the external communication section 36 [0174]), determine a stopping risk value of a full-shoulder stoppable area or determine a stopping risk value of a half-shoulder stoppable area (The risk calculator 133 calculates, on the basis of vehicle surrounding information obtained by the information obtaining part 30, a collision risk that the own vehicle H collides with an on-road obstacle, in an evacuation path generating process, a decelerating process, a lane changing process, a first-travel-lane traveling process, and a stopping process).
Tsuji does not explicitly teach, however Tam teaches:
based on… maximum speed information of a road (the road information (e.g., the speed limit [0083])… determine a stopping risk value of a full-shoulder stoppable area or determine a stopping risk value of a half-shoulder stoppable area (the motion controller 314 may control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by stopping the vehicle behind the object, outside of the risk zone (e.g., maintaining the calculated target minimum separation distance between the vehicle and the object). In some implementations, the target minimum separation distance may be calculated based on a multiple of a length of the vehicle. For example, the distance could be one length of the vehicle, two lengths of the vehicle, and so forth. In some implementations, the risk zone may have a width corresponding to the lane in which the vehicle is traveling in the transportation network. The distance may depend on the movement information (e.g., the speed of the object) and/or the road information (e.g., the speed limit, presence of a two-lane road, an oncoming lane, a parallel lane in the same direction, and lane markings) [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuji to include the teachings as taught by Tam with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of determining vehicle risk for stopping maneuvers. Tam teaches the benefit of “The system may then control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by constraining a speed of the vehicle. For example, the system may then control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by stopping the vehicle behind the object, outside of the risk zone (e.g., maintaining the calculated target minimum separation distance between the vehicle and the object). As a result, the vehicle (e.g., the AV), may reduce disruption to traffic flow by enabling an object (e.g., the lead vehicle) to perform the maneuver. [Tam, 0038]”.
Regarding claim 20:
Tsuji teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Tsuji further teaches:
wherein stopping risk of a full-shoulder stoppable area or stopping risk of a half-shoulder stoppable area is determined (The risk calculator 133 calculates, on the basis of vehicle surrounding information obtained by the information obtaining part 30, a collision risk that the own vehicle H collides with an on-road obstacle, in an evacuation path generating process, a decelerating process, a lane changing process, a first-travel-lane traveling process, and a stopping process) based on a size of a stoppable area (“road shoulder width evaluation”, is executed. FIGS. 5 and 7A show examples in which each point Px is evaluated by three stages of “A”, “B”, and “C”, depending on the width of the road shoulder region [0129]), whether an area is a stopping prohibited area (existence of a road sign or a road marking for showing prohibition of parking and stopping [0130]), [maximum speed information of a road], and traffic flow information (speed of on-road obstacles, such as other vehicle J, in front of the own vehicle H and obliquely forward on a road shoulder side, obliquely rearward on a road shoulder side, and rearward of the own vehicle H, on the basis of output of the camera 31, the radar 32, and/or the external communication section 36 [0174]).
Tsuji does not explicitly teach, however Tam teaches:
wherein stopping risk of a full-shoulder stoppable area or stopping risk of a half-shoulder stoppable area is determined (the motion controller 314 may control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by stopping the vehicle behind the object, outside of the risk zone (e.g., maintaining the calculated target minimum separation distance between the vehicle and the object). In some implementations, the target minimum separation distance may be calculated based on a multiple of a length of the vehicle. For example, the distance could be one length of the vehicle, two lengths of the vehicle, and so forth. In some implementations, the risk zone may have a width corresponding to the lane in which the vehicle is traveling in the transportation network. The distance may depend on the movement information (e.g., the speed of the object) and/or the road information (e.g., the speed limit, presence of a two-lane road, an oncoming lane, a parallel lane in the same direction, and lane markings) [0083]) based on… maximum speed information of a road (the road information (e.g., the speed limit [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsuji to include the teachings as taught by Tam with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of determining vehicle risk for stopping maneuvers. Tam teaches the benefit of “The system may then control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by constraining a speed of the vehicle. For example, the system may then control the vehicle to avoid the risk zone by stopping the vehicle behind the object, outside of the risk zone (e.g., maintaining the calculated target minimum separation distance between the vehicle and the object). As a result, the vehicle (e.g., the AV), may reduce disruption to traffic flow by enabling an object (e.g., the lead vehicle) to perform the maneuver. [Tam, 0038]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2021/0309217) discloses An apparatus for controlling autonomous driving includes: a processor to determine a travelling situation and a lane position, and determine an autonomous driving control maneuver of a vehicle depending on the determination result, and a non-transitory storage medium to store a result calculated by the processor and a set of instructions executed by the processor. The processor determines a safety of each lane of a road on which the vehicle is travelling to control the vehicle to stop on a lane representing a highest safety, after starting a minimum risk maneuver of the autonomous driving control maneuver.
Suzuki (US 2024/0378903) discloses A driving assistance apparatus configured to assist driving of a vehicle includes one or more processors and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors. The one or more processors are configured to execute a process including determining whether the vehicle is in a situation in which the vehicle is obstructing passage of a following vehicle; that the vehicle is in the situation, determining whether a driver of the vehicle is aware of the situation; upon determining that the driver is aware of the situation, determining whether the driver is able to determine a driving operation for avoiding the situation; and, upon not determining that the driver is able to determine the driving operation, setting an assistance operation for avoiding the situation, based on consciousness of the driver and a width of a road on which the vehicle is traveling.
Ishida (US 2022/0413486) discloses An evacuation running assistance system includes a road shoulder evacuation possibility determiner to determine if an own vehicle can be evacuated to a road shoulder; an own vehicle situation determiner to determine a current situation of an own vehicle in accordance with a time limit and the road shoulder evacuation possibility, a controller to control an own vehicle in accordance with the situation of the own vehicle; and a road shoulder evacuation possibility road determiner to acquire evacuation space information from a past running history of the own vehicle. The own vehicle situation determiner determines that the own vehicle is in the situation to be controlled to perform the on-lane stopping when the road shoulder evacuation possibility road determiner does not determine within the provisional time that the evacuation of the own vehicle to the road shoulder is possible.
Remijn (US 2021/0209386) discloses An occupant monitoring system in a vehicle comprises a processor in communication with a printed circuit board; a radar module in communication with the processor; and a lens in communication with the radar module. The radar module and the lens are disposed within a rearview assembly in a vehicle.
Yao (US 11,529,969) discloses In response to a request to pull over an ADV at a destination point at a side of a lane, a path including a first segment, a second segment and a transition point is planned. The transition point is determined based on at least one of a distance to the destination point or a predetermined distance to a boundary of the side of the lane. The first segment from a start point to the transition point is generated by using a quadratic programming (QP) operation. The second segment from the transition point to the destination is generated based on a shape of the boundary. The ADV is controlled to pull over to the destination point according to the planned path.
Gerrese (US 2024/0059323) discloses Systems and techniques are provided for vehicle safety technologies. An example method can include detecting, based on sensor data captured by an autonomous vehicle (AV), an emergency event associated with the AV; and in response to detecting the emergency event, generating information about the emergency event based on the sensor data and sending, to an emergency responder, a wireless signal including a request for help from the emergency responder and the information about the emergency event; and based on a determination that the emergency responder is within a threshold proximity to the AV, providing additional data associated with the emergency event to the emergency responder and/or one or more devices associated with the emergency responder.
Weidler (US 2023/0406199) discloses The invention relates to a safety system (16) for an autonomous vehicle (10), the safety system (16) comprising at least one warning device (26) and a warning system (18). The warning system (18) is configured to automatically detect an emergency situation based on a monitored operating mode of at least one subsystem (44) of the autonomous vehicle (10), and to automatically deploy, in response to detecting the emergency situation, the at least one warning device (26) in a surroundings (28) of the autonomous vehicle (10). The warning system (18) is further configured to deploy the at least one warning device (26) according to a minimal risk procedure (50) of the autonomous vehicle (10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665