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 .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 18/849,895. Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2022-058474 filed 03/31/2022 and 371 of PCT/JP2023/010000 filed 03/15/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: …travel environment condition acquisition unit… in claim(s) 1 and 20; …action planning unit… in claim(s) 1, 18 and 20; …output control unit…in claim(s) 1 and 13; …monitoring unit… in claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7; …reward and punishment granting unit… in claims 4 and 5; and …function update control unit… in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner notes that, for the claim features of claim(s) 1; support is given in the written description of paragraphs [0045]-[0046], [0078], [0124]-[0128], [0136] and [0139]. The claim features includes …travel environment condition acquisition unit… in claim(s) 1 and 20; …action planning unit… in claim(s) 1, 18 and 20; …output control unit…in claim(s) 1 and 13; …monitoring unit… in claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7; …reward and punishment granting unit… in claims 4 and 5; and …function update control unit… in claim 6 are components are configured to control all or some of the functions of the vehicle control system, which is well understood as suitable as hardware.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-13, and 15-20 are directed to a computer-implemented method (process), and an apparatus, and an computer program product respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A mobile object control device comprising:
a travel environment condition acquisition unit that acquires a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level of a mobile object;
an action planning unit that creates a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired, and creates a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted; and
an output control unit that controls presentation of guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user, wherein
the action planning unit sets or changes the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
Claim 19 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A mobile object control method comprising:
acquiring a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level of a mobile object; creating a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired;
creating a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted;
controlling presentation of guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user; and
changing the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
Claim 20 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A mobile object comprising:
a travel environment condition acquisition unit that acquires a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level;
an action planning unit that creates a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired, and
creates a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted; and
an output unit that presents guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user, wherein
the action planning unit sets or changes the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, the “aggregating” step encompasses a driver making observation, evaluation or judgement about vehicles with information such position and/or location, speed for downstream and upstream road segments. Furthermore, the “determining” steps, applied to each of the vehicles, encompasses that same driver making an evaluation, observation or judgment about which direction each vehicle is oriented according to traffic data. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A mobile object control device comprising:
a travel environment condition acquisition unit that acquires a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level of a mobile object;
an action planning unit that creates a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired, and creates a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted; and
an output control unit that controls presentation of guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user, wherein
the action planning unit sets or changes the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of:
A mobile object control method comprising:
acquiring a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level of a mobile object; creating a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired;
creating a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted;
controlling presentation of guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user; and
changing the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of:
A mobile object comprising:
a travel environment condition acquisition unit that acquires a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level;
an action planning unit that creates a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired, and
creates a measure-taking method for an automated driving restricted section being a section in which automated driving is restricted; and
an output unit that presents guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user, wherein
the action planning unit sets or changes the travel plan according to the measure-taking method selected by the user.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the data processing functions of the “A mobile object control device” (data processing) and “a travel environment condition acquisition unit”; “an action planning unit”; and “an output control unit”, the claimed components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
In addition, each of these additional limitations indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the presentation functions of the output control unit”, these limitations amount to post-solution activity (e.g., the provision of information on a display, as described in paragraphs [0110]-[011]; [0127] and [0136]-[0138] of the specification).
The characterization of the “units” as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the “A mobile object control device” (data processing) and “a travel environment condition acquisition unit”; “an action planning unit”; and “an output control unit”, amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, update, or generate) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, these elements also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The characterization of “a travel environment condition acquisition unit”; “an action planning unit”; and “an output control unit”, are “units” as being of the vehicles during the travel of the vehicles along the road segment amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Though not explicitly recited, if there is a user selection on a user interface, (i) the Symantec, Internet Patent Corp. court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that a web browser’s back and forward functionality is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) and/or (ii) the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 2 further recites a monitoring unit that applies the abstract idea of monitoring whether or not the user follows the measure-taking method that has been selected. This judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 further recites a monitoring unit that applies the abstract idea of monitoring whether or not the user has performed a necessary response in a case where the measure- taking method that requires a response by the user is selected. This judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 5 further recites a reward and punishment granting unit that applies the abstract concept of lowering convenience of the user for automated driving of the mobile object as the penalty. In addition, depending of the scope of lowering convenience, if the scope effects the operability of the automated driving system, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 6-7, and 9 further characterizes a function update control unit that applies the abstract concept of controlling an update of a function of the mobile object. At this level of breadth, the update function can be considered abstract as no function is explicitly recited and could therefore merely represent a decision.
Claims 8 and 15 further characterizes the mobile object as a vehicle and the user as the driver of said vehicle, which represents a field of use.
Claim 9 further characterizes update function is a function updated by Over The Air (OTA) is a field of use.
Claim 10 and 16-18 further characterizes the previously recited abstract concepts (i.e., guidance information, constraint conditions, planning processes, etc. ).
Claims 11-13 further characterizes the presentation of information based on priorities and estimated timing, which further characterizes the previously identified abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the previously identified judicial exception and/or aforementioned additional elements that were identified as well-understood, routine and conventional in the analysis above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-13, and 15-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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) 1-3, 10, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0286140), hereinafter, referred to as “Miura” in view of Stenneth et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0243375), hereinafter, referred to as “Stenneth”.
Regarding [Claim 1], Miura teaches a mobile object control device (see, “A vehicle control device 12”) comprising:
a travel environment condition acquisition unit (“an external environment recognition unit 54”) that acquires a travel environment condition used to set an automated driving level of a mobile object (see, Paragraphs [0040]: “The external environment recognition unit 54 recognizes the peripheral state of the host vehicle 10 on the basis of the information output from the external environment sensors 16”; and [0042]);
an action planning unit (“action plan unit 58”) that creates a travel plan including a path and the automated driving level applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition that has been acquired (see, Paragraph [0042]-[0043]: “The vehicle control unit 66 controls the output system device group 80 on the basis of behavior of the host vehicle 10 planned by the action plan unit 58. For example, the vehicle control unit 66 calculates a steering instruction value based on the travel trajectory generated by the action plan unit 58”), and creates a measure-taking method (see, Paragraph [0042]: “The control state setting unit 60 sets a control state of automated driving, specifically, an automated driving level. Setting the automated driving level includes changing the automated driving level from the level X to the level Y. The action decision unit 62 decides an action of the host vehicle 10 on the basis of the peripheral state recognized by the external environment recognition unit 54 and the automated driving level set by the control state setting unit 60”; and [0063]: “When the process has advanced from step S2 to step S3, the control state setting unit 60 acquires travel environment information in the construction section 130 that is recognized by the external environment recognition unit 54. The travel environment information includes various kinds of information regarding the construction section 130,
such as entrance information regarding the degree of difficulty of entering the construction section 130, road surface information regarding a road surface of the construction section 130, distance information regarding a distance D of the construction section 130, the presence or absence of the map information 42 of the construction section 130, and weather information regarding the weather in the construction section 130. The entrance information includes information of a width W of the entrance 130a of the construction section 130. The width Wis determined based on the image information acquired by the cameras 18” **** Interpreting as method for measure-taking****) for an automated driving (see, Paragraphs Paragraph [0049]: “The automated riving level is operation control information that is classified into a plurality of stages on the basis of the degree of control by the vehicle control device 12 with respect to the operation of acceleration, steering, and braking of the host vehicle 10, and the degree of participation of the vehicle occupant who operates the host vehicle 10 in a vehicle operation.”; and [0061]: “If the external environment recognition unit 54 recognizes the construction section 130 (step S2: YES), the process advances to step S3. On the other hand, if the external environment recognition unit 54 does not recognize the construction section 130 (step S2: NO), a series of processes is terminated. At this time, the control state setting unit 60 maintains the automated driving level. The action plan unit 58 generates the target speed and the travel trajectory that cause the host vehicle 10 to travel in the first travel path 114, so that the host vehicle 10 travels in the first travel path 114.”; and [0063]) restricted section being a section (see, “construction section” *** Interpreting the construction section as the “restricted section”***) in which automated driving is restricted (see, Figures 4-7; and Paragraphs [0049]-[0057]; [0061]; [0065]; and [0073]: “When the process has advanced from step S12 to step S13, the control state setting unit 60 sets the automated driving level. Here, the automated driving level is set to a predetermined automated driving mode (construction section mode) that is stored in the storage device 70 in advance. However, similarly to step S4 in FIG. 4, the control state setting unit 60 does not change the automated driving level to a higher level”); and
an output control unit (“notification control unit 68”) that controls presentation of guidance information including the measure-taking method to a user (see, Paragraphs [0044]: “The notification control unit 68 outputs the notification instruction to the notification device 88 on the basis of a notification action planned by the action plan unit 58.”; and [0076]-[0077]: “The notification control unit 68 outputs to the notification device 88, the notification instruction in accordance with notification content that is decided by the action decision unit 62. Then, the notification device 88 notifies the vehicle occupant that the host vehicle 10 will travel in the construction section 130”; [0082] and [0085]: “the action decision unit 62 configured to decide the action of the host vehicle 10 on the basis of the peripheral state that is recognized by the external environment recognition unit 54 and the control state that is set by the control state setting unit 60; and the vehicle control unit 66 configured to perform the travel control of the host vehicle 10 on the basis of the decision result from the action decision unit 62. If the external environment recognition unit 54 recognizes the construction section 130 in the road 110, the control state setting unit 60 is configured to set the control state in accordance with the construction section 130”), wherein the action planning unit sets or changes the travel plan according to the measure-taking method (see, Paragraphs [0061]: “At this time, the control state setting unit 60 maintains the automated driving level. The action plan unit 58 generates the target speed and the travel trajectory that cause the host vehicle 10 to travel in the first travel path 114, so that the host vehicle 10 travels in the first travel path 114”; and [0065]: “In step S4, the control state setting unit 60 sets the automated driving level on the basis of the acquired travel environment information. For example, the control state setting unit 60 scores each travel environment information”)…
As Miura discloses …the measure-taking method…,however, it is not explicitly disclosed where …the method is selected by the user.
Additionally, Stenneth teaches
…the measure-taking method selected by the user (see, Paragraphs [0067]: “In step 705, the vehicle control module 409 activates or deactivates an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle based on the predicted presence or the predicted absence of the physical divider. In addition or alternatively, the vehicle control module 409 can present a notification to the driver or occupant of the vehicle prior to activating or deactivating the autonomous mode. For example, the notification can alert the driver that a change in the autonomous mode will occur shortly (e.g., within a specified period of time). In another example, the notification can provide the driver an option to accept or reject the ending change in autonomous driving mode, or select other alternatives (e.g., reroute the vehicle to road segments with physical dividers, etc.)…the autonomous driving mode is deactivated based on the predicted presence and activated based on the predicted absence of the physical divider. By way of example, the vehicle can be an autonomous vehicle or highly assisted driving vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating within a road network without driver or occupant input . It is noted that autonomous vehicles and highly assisted driving vehicles are part of a spectrum of vehicle classifications that can span from no automation to fully autonomous operation.””).
As Miura discloses a vehicle control unit configured to perform travel control of the host vehicle on a basis of a decision result from the action decision unit, wherein if the external environment recognition unit recognizes a construction section (“restricted section”) in a road, the control state setting unit is configured to set the control state in accordance with the construction section.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement the measure-taking method selected by the user as taught by Stenneth. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to activate or deactivate an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle , provide a notification prior to an activation or a deactivation of the autonomous driving mode , or a combination thereof based on the predicted presence or the predicted absence of the physical divider (see, Paragraph [0008]), and the vehicle can present an alert or notification of any detected physical dividers, OPPO, VRU, etc. to provide greater situational awareness and improve safety for drivers (see, Paragraph [0073]).
As to [ claim 2], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1. Miura disclose further comprising a monitoring unit (“operation detection unit 64”) that monitors whether or not the user follows the measure-taking method (see, Paragraph [0042]: “The operation detection unit 64 detects a driving operation of the host vehicle 10 performed by the vehicle occupant on the basis of the detected information of the operation sensors 46” and [0085]).…
Additionally, Stenneth teaches
… the measure-taking method that has been selected (see, Paragraph [0067]: “In addition or alternatively, he vehicle control module 409 can present a notification to the driver or occupant of the vehicle prior to activating or deactivating the autonomous mode . For example , the notification can alert the driver that a change in the autonomous mode will occur shortly (e.g., within a specified period of time). In another example, the notification can provide the driver an option to accept or reject the pending change in autonomous driving mode, or select other alternatives (e.g., reroute the vehicle to road segments with physical dividers, etc.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement the measure-taking method selected by the user as taught by Stenneth. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to activate or deactivate an autonomous driving mode of the vehicle , provide a notification prior to an activation or a deactivation of the autonomous driving mode , or a combination thereof based on the predicted presence or the predicted absence of the physical divider (see, Paragraph [0008]), and the vehicle can present an alert or notification of any detected physical dividers, OPPO, VRU, etc. to provide greater situational awareness and improve safety for drivers (see, Paragraph [0073]).
As to [Claim 3], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 2. Miura discloses wherein the monitoring unit monitors whether or not the user has performed a necessary response in a case where the measure-taking method that requires a response by the user is selected (see, Paragraphs [0076]-[0078]: “If the degree of the automation is decreased in step S4, the vehicle occupant needs to perform the travel control of the host vehicle 10 partially or entirely. In this case, the action decision unit 62 decides to perform the notification control to prompt the vehicle occupant to drive manually. The notification control unit 68 outputs to the notification device 88, the notification instruction in accordance with the notification content that is decided by the action decision unit 62. Then, the notification device 88 performs a takeover request (hereinafter, referred to as TOR) to prompt the vehicle occupant to drive manually. Moreover, the action decision unit 62 measures elapsed time after the TOR is performed, by using a timer 72 provided for the controller 50.”).
As to [Claim 10], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1. Miura discloses wherein the guidance information includes a plurality of the measure-taking methods (see, Figures 3-4; and Paragraph [0049]: “The automated driving level is operation control information that is classified into a plurality of stages on the basis of the degree of control by the vehicle control device 12 with respect to the operation of acceleration, steering, and braking of the host vehicle 10, and the degree of participation of the vehicle occupant who operates the host vehicle 10 in a vehicle operation.”).
As to [Claim 13], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1. Miura discloses wherein the output control unit controls a timing at which the guidance information including the measure-taking method is presented to the user (see, Paragraphs [0075]: “In step S5 in FIG. 4, various kinds of control that can be performed in the automated driving level that is set at that time may be further performed”; [0076]: “The notification control unit 68 outputs to the notification device 88, the notification instruction in accordance with notification content that is decided by the action decision unit 62. Then, the notification device 88 notifies the vehicle occupant that the host vehicle 10 will travel in the construction section 130.”; and [0084]: “If the preceding vehicle l00p exists within a predetermined distance from the host vehicle 10, the host vehicle 10 can pass the construction section 130 by performing trajectory trace control to trace a travel trajectory of the preceding vehicle 100p.”) on a basis of a timing at which the user is predicted to pass the automated driving restricted section affected by the measure-taking method (see, Paragraph [0078]: “If the degree of the automation is decreased in step S4, the vehicle occupant needs to perform the travel control of the host vehicle 10 partially or entirely. In this case, the action decision unit 62 decides to perform the notification control to prompt the vehicle occupant to drive manually. The notification control unit 68 outputs to the notification device 88, the notification instruction in accordance with the notification content that is decided by the action decision unit 62. Then, the notification device 88 performs a takeover request (hereinafter, referred to as TOR) to prompt the vehicle occupant to drive manually. Moreover, the action decision unit 62 measures elapsed time after the TOR is performed, by using a timer 72 provided for the controller 50.”).
As to [Claim 14], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1. Miura discloses wherein the travel plan further includes a constraint condition configured to execute automated driving of automated driving level to be applied (see, Paragraphs [0071]-[0073]: “When the process has advanced from step S12 to step S13, the control state setting unit 60 sets the automated driving level. Here, the automated driving level is set to a predetermined automated driving mode (construction section mode ) that is stored in the storage device 70 in advance. However, similarly to step S4 in FIG. 4, the control state setting unit 60 does not change the automated driving level to a higher level”).
Regarding to [claim 19], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 19 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Regarding to [claim 20], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 20 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Stenneth, and in further view of Oba (Pub. No.: US 2019/0329791).
As to [Claim 4], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 2. Miura discloses a scoring table, however, Miura nor Stenneth explicitly discloses a reward and punishment granting unit that grants at least one of a penalty or an incentive to the user on a basis of a result of monitoring whether or not the user has followed the measure-taking method that has been selected.
However, Oba teaches
further comprising a reward and punishment granting unit (“penalty application section 12”) that grants at least one of a penalty or an incentive to the user on a basis of a result of monitoring whether or not the user has followed the measure-taking method that has been selected (see, Paragraph [0210]: “In step S44, the penalty application section 125 determines whether or not penalty applications have been frequent. For example, in the case where the number of penalty applications from the beginning of the driver monitoring is less than a given threshold, and in the case where the frequency of penalty applications within an immediately previous given time period (e.g., 30 minutes) is less than a given threshold, the penalty application section 125 determines that penalty applications have not been frequent, and the process proceeds to step S45.”; and [0211]: “In step S45, the driver's condition detection section 142 determines whether or not a dangerous situation is present. Here, the dangerous situation refers, for example, to a situation in which the driver is unable to resume the requested driving intervention level at once or drive properly, for example, because the driver is unconscious, fast asleep, or drunk. Then, in the case where it is determined that a dangerous situation is not present, the process proceeds to step S46.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement a driving intervention level indicating an extent to which a driver intervenes in driving of a vehicle as taught by Oba. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method that allow safer automated driving (see, Paragraph [0001]), and conveying a driver's driving intervention level is corrected, thus ensuring improved safety in automated driving (see, Paragraph [0030]).
As to [Claim 5], the combination of Miura, Stenneth, and Oba teaches mobile object control device according to claim 4. Oba further teaches wherein the reward and punishment granting unit lowers convenience of the user for automated driving of the mobile object as the penalty (see, Paragraphs [0212]-[0213] and [0222]: “For example, the penalty application section 125 instructs the driving support control section 153 to reduce the automation level. As a result, the automation level is reduced to level 2 or lower, thus resulting in increased loads on the driver. Also, for example, the penalty application section 125 instructs the driving support control section 153 to disable some of driving support functions (e.g., ACC, LKAS).”- [0223]: “The reduction of the automation level and the restriction of the driving support functions may be forcefully continued for a given time period. Alternatively, for example, the automation level may be allowed to be restored to the original level only if the driver goes through a complicated maneuver or thinking routine.”).
As to [Claim 15], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 1. Miura discloses wherein the mobile object is a vehicle (see, “a host vehicle 10”), however, does not discloses …the user is a driver of the vehicle.
And Stenneth teaches …the user is a driver of the vehicle (see, Paragraph [0043]: “the driver is expected to drive in more of a manual mode (e.g., requiring the driver
to hold the steering wheel as the vehicle operates otherwise in autonomous mode, or to disable some or all autonomous operations).”).
Additionally, Oba teaches
wherein the mobile object is a vehicle, and the user is a driver of the vehicle (see, Paragraph [0033]: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration
example of a driver monitoring section and a vehicle control section.”; and [0052]: “…passengers of the vehicle including the driver.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify driver monitoring section detects a driving intervention level indicating an extent to which a driver intervenes in driving of a vehicle. as taught by Oba. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method that allow safer automated driving (see, Paragraph [0001]), and conveying a driver's driving intervention level is corrected, thus ensuring improved safety in automated driving (see, Paragraph [0030]).
As to [Claim 16], the combination of Miura, Stenneth, and Oba teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 15. Miura discloses wherein the automated driving restricted section is a section in which automated driving at level 4 cannot be executed without a constraint condition (see, Paragraphs [0194]: “It should be noted that even if there is a zone where the vehicle can travel in automation level 4, it is not always possible for the vehicle to travel in automation level 4 in all stages. Therefore, even in the case where the automation level is set to level 4, the driving intervention level may also be determined through active monitoring as in the case where the automation level is set to level 3 on the assumption that the automation level changes to a lower level.”; and [0272]: “In step S13, the automation level setting section 152 determines whether or not it is necessary to resume manual driving. For example, in the case where the automation level changes from level 3 or level 4 to level 2 or lower, that is, in the case where the automation level changes from a level where the driver does not intervene in driving to a level where the driver intervenes in driving, the automation level setting section 152 determines that it is necessary to resume manual driving, and the process proceeds to step S14..”, see also [0056]-[0057], [0065]).
As to [Claim 17], the combination of Miura. Stenneth, and Oba teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 16. Miura discloses wherein the constraint condition is a constraint condition regarding at least one of a moving speed (see, Paragraph [0061]: “If the external environment recognition unit 54 recognizes the construction section 130 (step S2: YES), the process advances to step S3. On the other hand, if the external environment recognition unit 54 does not recognize the construction section 130 (step S2: NO), a series of processes is terminated. At this time, the control state setting unit 60 maintains the automated driving level. The action plan unit 58 generates the target speed and the travel trajectory that cause the host vehicle 10 to travel in the first travel path 114, so that the host vehicle 10 travels in the first travel path 114.”; and [0080]: “The vehicle control unit 66 calculates the deceleration instruction value and the steering instruction value that are necessary to cause the host vehicle 10 to travel at the target speed along the travel trajectory, and outputs the values to the output system device group 80”; and [0063]: “The travel environment information includes various kinds of information regarding the construction section 130, such as entrance information regarding the degree of difficulty of entering the construction section 130, road surface information regarding a road surface of the construction section 130, distance information regarding a distance D of the construction section 130, the presence or absence of the map information 42 of the construction section 130, and weather information regarding the weather in the construction section 130. The entrance information includes information of a width W of the entrance 130a of the construction section 130. The width Wis determined based on the image information acquired by the cameras 18.”) and…
Additionally, Oba teaches
….an inter-vehicle distance of the vehicle (see, Paragraphs [0166]: “For example , the traveling control section 33 changes the traveling direction of the vehicle such that the vehicle departs slightly from the lane for a given time period. In response, in the case where the driver pays attention to the forward direction normally, the driver is expected to steer in such a manner as to correct the vehicle's direction. Therefore, the driver's condition detection section 142 detects the driver's responsiveness and awakening level on the basis of whether or not the driver maneuvers the steering wheel in such a manner as to bring the vehicle back into the lane, the response speed, and so on. It should be noted, however, that if the traveling direction of the vehicle is changed unconditionally, a hazardous situation may arise depending on the positional relationship with surrounding vehicles. Also, there is a possibility that a following vehicle behind may be in pursuit”; and [0167]: “For example, the driving support control section 153 sets a distance to a preceding vehicle longer than normal in the case where ACC is enabled. In response, the driver's condition detection section 142 detects the driver's responsiveness and awakening level on the basis of whether or not the driver maneuvers the accelerator pedal in such a manner as to bring the vehicle-to-vehicle distance back to the normal length, the response speed, and so on.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify driver monitoring section detects a driving intervention level indicating an extent to which a driver intervenes in driving of a vehicle. as taught by Oba. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method that allow safer automated driving (see, Paragraph [0001]), and conveying a driver's driving intervention level is corrected, thus ensuring improved safety in automated driving (see, Paragraph [0030]).
As to [Claim 18], the combination of Miura. Stenneth, and Oba teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 15. Miura discloses wherein the action planning unit (see, “action plan unit 58”) sets the automated driving level to be applied to each section on the path on a basis of the travel environment condition (see, Paragraphs [0042]-[0044]; and [0061]: “If the external environment recognition unit 54 recognizes the construction section 130 (step S2: YES), the process advances to step S3. On the other hand, if the external environment recognition unit 54 does not recognize the construction section 130 (step S2: NO), a series of processes is terminated. At this time, the control state setting unit 60 maintains the automated driving level. The action plan unit 58 generates the target speed and the travel trajectory that cause the host vehicle 10 to travel in the first travel path 114, so that the host vehicle 10 travels in the first travel path 114.”)… as Miura discloses a various programs to be executed by the calculation device 52, see Paragraph [0045], however, Miura does not explicitly discloses wherein, …that has been acquired , by using software including a function of deriving the automated driving level applicable to the vehicle with respect to a pattern of the travel environment condition that is not defined in an operation design domain.
However, Oba teaches
…that has been acquired, by using software (see, Paragraphs [0329]: “The series of processes described above may be performed by hardware or software. In the case where the series of processes are performed by software, the program included in the software is installed in a computer. Here, the computer includes not only a computer built into dedicated hardware but also, for example, a general-purpose personal computer capable of performing various functions when various programs are installed.”; and [0330] : “FIG. 12 is a block diagram illustrating a hardware configuration example of a computer for performing the above series of processes by using a program.”) including a function of deriving the automated driving level applicable to the vehicle with respect to a pattern of the travel environment condition that is not defined in an operation design domain (see, Figures 1-4; Paragraphs [0023]; [0084]; [0174]: “The driving intervention level detection section 143 starts detecting the driver's driving intervention level on the basis of the analysis result of the driving behaviors and the detection result of the driver's condition.”; [0175]: “In step S8, the learning section 127 starts the learning process.”; [0176]: “For example, the learning section 127 starts learning a correlation between the driver's driving capability and the driver's various detectable conditions on the basis of the analysis result of the driving behavior analysis section 141.”; and [0177]: “For example, the learning section 127 starts learning biological information, driver's motions, and tendencies of the driver's driving maneuvers during normal manual driving. For example, the learning section 127 constantly learns the correlation between the driver's inherent characteristics in keeping with traveling conditions”; and [0371]: “The vehicle control apparatus according to any one of (1) to (14) described above, in which the driver monitoring section determines whether or not the driving intervention level is insufficient on the basis of a condition that varies depending on the automated driving level. (16)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify driver monitoring section detects a driving intervention level indicating an extent to which a driver intervenes in driving of a vehicle. as taught by Oba. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method that allow safer automated driving (see, Paragraph [0001]), and conveying a driver's driving intervention level is corrected, thus ensuring improved safety in automated driving (see, Paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Stenneth, and in view of Yamada et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0197637), hereinafter, referred to as “Yamada”.
As to [Claim 11], Miura in view of Stenneth teaches the mobile object control device according to claim 10. Miura discloses wherein the guidance information includes a selection menu in which a plurality of the measure-taking methods (see, Paragraph [0065]: “In step S4, the control state setting unit 60 sets the automated driving level on the basis of the acquired travel environment information. For example, the control state setting unit 60 scores each travel environment information. The storage device 70 stores a score table 170 as shown in FIG. 5. The score table 170 sets each score SC1 to SC10 for each kind of the travel environment information. The control state setting unit 60 determines the score for each travel environment information acquired in step S3 by referring to the score table 170, and calculates the total score. Then, the control state setting unit 60 sets the automated driving level in accordance with the total score. For example, if the width W of the entrance 130a is narrow, the steering is difficult, so that the degree of difficulty in the automated driving is high. In addition, if the road surface is the iron plate, the road surface is slippery, so that the degree of difficulty in the automated driving is high. Moreover, if the distance D of the construction section 130 is long or there is no information of the construction section 130 in the map information 42, then there are many uncertainties in the travel path, so that the degree of difficulty in the automated driving is high.”)…,however, Miura does not explicitly disclose …the measure-taking methods is aligned in a selectable manner.
However, Yamada teaches
…the measure-taking methods is aligned in a selectable manner (see, Paragraph [0075]: “As described above, according to the present embodiment, when a driver touches the own vehicle icon, selectable operations or moveable regions of the own vehicle icon are displayed in a manner that can be easily recognized by a driver, and thus it is possible to more intuitively perform an operation. In addition, it is possible to transfer the contents of various operations to automatic driving controller 20, by selecting the contents of operations or moving the icon to a moveable region, or by selecting or moving the icon displayed on the touch panel by a gesture. ”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify a technique that supports a driving operation instruction of a driver to a vehicle during automatic driving as taught by Yamada. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey selecting an instruction among many switches or selecting a changed function with reduced switches according to a situation is a complex task (see, Paragraph [0023]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and view of Miura, Stenneth, Yamada and in view of Watanabe et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0290606), hereinafter, referred to as “Watanabe”.
As to [Claim 12], the combination of Miura, Stenneth, Yamada teaches discloses the mobile object control device according to claim 11. Miura fails to disclose wherein the selection menu includes a plurality of the measure-taking methods aligned in a priority order based on a preference preset by the user.
However, Watanabe teaches
wherein the selection menu includes a plurality of the measure-taking methods aligned in a priority order based on a preference preset by the user (see, Figures. 11-15 and 18-22; and Paragraphs [0141]: “The display portion 31 displays four caution items such as “ watch for emerging objects ” S1 , " travel to the right ” S2, “ slow ” S3, and “human figure found” S4 corresponding to the surveillance area at the intersection to the bottom right of the display portion 31. When user US touches “ travel to the right ” S2, the control portion 1 “recognizes this according to YES in step B3 of FIG. 3, leaves travel to the right ” S2, and dismisses the other caution items S1, S3, and S4 from the display as illustrated in FIG. 14”; [0157]: “The control portion 1 performs the additional hazard prediction process illustrated in FIG . 3 on condition that the hazard prediction process in FIG . 2 is performed and surveillance area AY is specified in step A2 . In step B1 of FIG. 3, the control portion 1 allows the display portion 31 to display a menu of caution items and prompts the user to select caution items. For example, FIG. 20 illustrates four caution items such as "watch for emerging objects” T1 and " travel to the right ” T2 on the assumption of anything emerging from the right of the road and “slow ” T3 and “ human figure found ” T4 on the assumption of avoiding anything emerging.”); and also see, [0100], [0143], [0154]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further determination portion then identifies the input information about an area or an object as a surveillance target , i.e. , a monitoring target as taught by Watanabe. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey an automatically operated vehicle has the function to detect and automatically avoid a hazard while monitoring surroundings and travels under automatic operation control (see, Paragraph [0003]).
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103, however, would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relative Prior Art
Nakamura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0291919), hereinafter, referred to as “Nakamura”, teaches a communication apparatus is provided in a movable object, and communicates with an external server. The communication apparatus includes a communication control unit for controlling communication with the server, and controlling communication with a movable object control unit controlling the movable object and communication with an update control unit controlling program update of the movable object control unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights