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 .
Claims
Claims 11-20 are pending in the application..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments concerning claim 1, filed 2/13/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument I: Applicant states that checking to see if the vehicle is free to drive is not the same as predicting an imminent driving off by the driver and that Cho only does the first. However, Cho states in paragraph (0011] the following: “The vision system may further include a communicator configured to receive a first pressure information on the pressure applied to an accelerator pedal, and a second pressure information on the pressure applied to a brake pedal, and the controller, after controlling the output of the departure availability notification information, may be configured to determine a departure intention of the vehicle based on the first pressure information and the second pressure information….” which reads as a monitoring, by the vehicle system, of the imminent actions of the driver beyond a simple checking to see if “the vehicle is free to drive.” The standard process of a driver when accelerating from a stopped position is to move the right foot off the brake and on to the accelerator, such that it can be concluded that if a driver is moving his foot off the brake the intent is to accelerate, which would be confirmed by pressure on the accelerator. This monitoring can thus be said to “predict an imminent driving off by the driver.” See [0150 and [0151].
Note that Cho’s system contains more than a simple warning to the driver and can be backed up by the ADAS 100 system: “…the ADAS 100 may detect a surrounding environment (e.g., another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, a lane, a road sign, etc.) around the vehicle 1 and control the driving and/or braking and/or steering of the vehicle 1 in response to the sensed surrounding environment.” [0062]. Note that an autonomous emergency braking (AEB) is specifically listed ([0063]). This, running in tandem, would provide the necessary stopping (or failing to start up) when the vehicle is confronted by a pedestrian even after the driver’s intention to depart has been determined.
Aside from the emergency braking provided by the ADAS system 100, the second controller 260, which is in charge of determining the intention of the driver (see 0150]-[0151]) and also determines whether a pedestrian or other vehicle exists in the direction to be driven (see [0160]), can also be in communication with the braking system 32 and the steering system 42 (see [0174]) and can perform braking to prevent a collision (see 0174]). Hence, Cho’s system is not simply providing information to a display but in fact acting on said information and satisfies the other elements of
Argument II: Applicant states that “Cho does not describe controlling … a longitudinal guidance system of the automated motor vehicle to prevent the predicted imminent driving off.” However, note that under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation “longitudinal control” contains starting up from a stop and going forwards in a curve, since even if the car then turns left or right, the initial activity at an intersection is going forwards from a stop line.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Objections
The objection of claim 19 has been addressed and is removed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been addressed and are removed.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been addressed and is removed.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US Pub. 2021/0291836 (Cho).
As for claim 11, Cho teaches a method for preventing an automated motor vehicle from driving-off ("Provided is a vision system, vehicle including thereof, and a controlling method of the vehicle." (abstract) that the vehicle has an autonomous mode, see [0046]-[0047]), comprising: recording sensor data relating to a status of a surroundings of the automated motor vehicle and a status of a driver of the automated motor vehicle (See Fig. 1 (100) has sensors (see Fig. 3 for the sensor scans outside the vehicle) driver intention from pedal pressure, etc. "The vision system may further include a
communicator configured to receive a first pressure information on the pressure applied to an accelerator pedal, and a second pressure information on the pressure applied to a brake pedal, and the controller, after controlling the output of the departure availability notification information, may be configured to determine a departure intention of the vehicle based on the first pressure information and the second pressure information, and re-recognize the object based on the processed image data when it is determined that there is the departure intention of the vehicle, and control the output of the stop notification information based on the information of the re-recognized object." [0011 ]);
predicting imminent driving-off of the automated motor vehicle triggered by the driver of the motor vehicle based on the sensor data, ("The second controller 260 determines whether the driver intends to accelerate based on the first pressure information detected by the first pressure detector, and determines that the departure intention exists when it is determined that the driver's acceleration intention exists." [0150]; "The second controller 260 determines whether the driver intends to release the brake based on the pressure information detected by the second pressure detector, and determines that there is an intention to depart when it is determined that the driver's intention to release the brake exists." [0151])
and controlling, based on the status of the surroundings, a longitudinal guidance system of the automated motor vehicle to prevent the predicted imminent driving off. (" The vehicle further comprises a braking system 32 and a steering system 42. In this case, the second controller 260 may also communicate with the braking system 32 and the steering system 42." [0173]; The braking system 32 may perform braking in response to a braking signal of the second controller 260 to prevent a collision with other vehicles or pedestrians." [0174]. A braking system, since it provides deceleration/stoppage to a vehicle that would otherwise be moving in a forwards direction, can be considered "an longitudinal guidance system", under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Even if a vehicle is going to make a turn to the left or to the right, it is moving forwards.).
As for claim 12, Cho teaches wherein sensors for recording the sensor data relating to the status of the driver of the automated motor vehicle comprise: interior sensors, pedal sensors, a steering angle sensor, a heart rate monitor of the driver, and/or operator interface sensors. (Exterior sensors: " The ADAS 100 according to the embodiment may include a front camera 110, a front radar 120, and the plurality of corner radars 130: 131, 132, 133, 134. "[0075]; pedal sensors: "The first pressure detector 230 detects the pressure applied to the accelerator pedal and outputs information (i.e., first pressure information) corresponding to the detected pressure. Here, the accelerator pedal may be pressed or released in response to the drivers driving intention." [0136]; "The second pressure detector 240 detects the pressure applied to the brake pedal and outputs information corresponding to the detected pressure (i.e., second pressure information). Here, the brake pedal may be pressurized or released in response to the drivers driving intention." [0137]; operator interface: display 271 (shown in Fig. 4))
As for claim 13, Cho teaches wherein sensors for recording the sensor data relating to the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle comprise at least one of: a radar sensor, a LiDAR sensor, a camera, and an ultrasonic sensor. ("The ADAS 100 may include a camera module 101 for acquiring image data around the vehicle 1 and a radar module 102 for acquiring obstacle data around the vehicle 1. "[0066] ; "Such an obstacle detector may include a front radar 120 and first and second comer radars 131 and 132. In addition, the obstacle detector may include a lidar sensor."[ 0158])
As for claim 14, Cho teaches The method of claim 11, wherein the imminent driving off of the automated motor vehicle is predicted based on the sensor data relating to the status of the driver. ("The second controller 260 determines whether the driver intends to accelerate based on the first pressure information detected by the first pressure detector, and determines that the departure intention exists when it is determined that the driver's acceleration intention exists. "[0150] ; "The second controller 260 determines whether the driver intends to release the brake based on the pressure information detected by the second pressure detector, and determines that there is an intention to depart when it is determined that the driver's intention to release the brake exists. "[0151])
As for claim 15, Cho teaches determining the status of the surroundings based on the sensor data relating to the status of the surroundings. ("For example, the ADAS 100 may detect a surrounding environment ( e.g., another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, a lane, a road sign, etc.) around the vehicle 1 and control the driving and/or braking and/or steering of the vehicle 1 in response to the sensed surrounding environment." [0062]; the second controller 260 receives image data from processor 212,which has received image data acquired by the image acquisition unit 211. [0121]-0123]; "In addition, the processor 212 recognizes at least one object among other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, traffic lights, and traffic signs located in front of the vehicle 1 from the image data in front of the vehicle 1, and transmits information on the recognized object to the second controller 260." [0123]).
As for claim 18, Cho teaches a device, comprising an electronic control unit configured to execute the method [of claim 11]. ("The driver assistance system 100 may include a Lead Vehicle Departure Alert (LVDA) that determines the possibility of departure when stopping at an intersection or crosswalk and outputs information on the determined departure availability." [0065])
As for claim 19, Cho teaches an automated motor vehicle, comprising the device [of claim 18]. ("vehicle" is shown in Fig. 3; the fact that it has an autonomous mode (and under BRI can be considered an "automated motor vehicle" is also given: "A vehicle according to an embodiment may be a vehicle that performs a manual driving mode in which a driver drives in response to a driving intention and an autonomous driving mode in which autonomously travels to a destination." [0046]
As for claim 20, Cho teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing software instructions that, when executed by a computer, configure the computer to carry out the method of claim 11. ("Meanwhile, the disclosed embodiments may be embodied in the form of a recording medium storing instructions executable by a computer. The instructions may be stored in the form of program code and, when executed by a processor, may generate a program module to perform the operations of the disclosed embodiments. The recording medium may be embodied as a computer-readable recording medium."[0263]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of WO 2014/053134 A1 (Luke et al., hence Luke).
As for claim 16, Cho teaches wherein the status of the surroundings is determined based on at least one of: a surroundings model determined based on the sensor data relating to the status of the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle, (Cho: "The second controller 260 determines whether other vehicles or pedestrians exist in the image based on object information recognized by the image data, recognizes information on signs of traffic signs, and recognizes traffic signals such as traffic lights." (underlining added) [0148]; “The second controller 260 determines the driving direction of the vehicle corresponding to the driving intention based on the received lever signal, checks the presence of a traffic signal of a traffic light and a pedestrian in the image based on the recognized object information when it is determined that the driving direction of the vehicle is a straight direction, controls the output of notification information about the possibility of departure when the confirmed traffic signal is a straight signal (green lamp is lit) and no pedestrian exists," (underlining added) [0161]” The identification of a traffic light in the surroundings and checking its status can be interpreted as the creation of a rough model (under BRI) by the vehicle system (a traffic light is in the vicinity which must be checked.))
mapped intersections and/or pedestrian crossings in the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle (Cho: "obstacle detector" mentioned 0155]-[0159]; pedestrian and intersection: "Determining the stationary state of the vehicle may include determining the stationary state at an intersection or crosswalk based on at least one of navigation information and the image data. "[0029])
Cho does not specifically teach information received via a vehicle-to-everything communication relating to the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle. However Luke teaches information received via a vehicle-to-everything communication relating to the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle. (Luke: "The method is used in a driver assistance system, the means for detecting at least one traffic light and the Provides traffic light phase. In particular, a camera sensor system or a radio receiver for receiving radio signals from other vehicles (c2c communication) or radio signals directly from traffic signs is provided for this purpose." (pg. 2). Note that the latter is considered a V2I communication.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of application to have added the V2X communication technique as outlined in Luke into the system of Cho. The motivation would have been to provide another method of communication.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of "Control methods for the coordination of autonomous vehicles at intersections", attached as NPL-Farkas.pdf, henceforth "Farkas".
As for claim 17, Cho teaches wherein determining the status of the surroundings of the automated motor vehicle comprises establishing a presence of a collision-critical area (pedestrian crosswalks and intersections seem to be considered "collision critical areas" in Cho even though the term is never mentioned. However, the interpretation of an intersection as being a "collision critical area" is known in the art; see Fig. 1 of Farkas) and wherein the driving-off is only prevented if the automated motor vehicle is in the collision-critical area and/or will be located in this area due to the predicted driving-off. (Cho: "The present disclosure prevents a collision with a pedestrian walking at an intersection or crosswalk by outputting information on the driving possibility of an intersection or crosswalk or information on the possibility of collision with other vehicles or pedestrians. Accordingly, the present disclosure can increase the safety of the vehicle and reduce the risk of traffic accidents." [0266]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the explanation of an intersection being a collision-target area, as identified in Farkas, in the system of Cho. The motivation would be to have a definition.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664