DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 9/25/2024 and IDS filed 9/25/2024 & 12/3/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 16 is the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2024 & 12/3/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 10-2023-0133241 (KR), filed 10/6/2023 & 10-2024-0124404 (KR), filed 9/12/2024.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 9/25/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”. 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 elements in this application that use “configured to” in combination with generic placeholder are interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites: “route server configured to”
Claim 16 recites: “input unit configured to”
The “route server” & “input unit” are generic placeholders while the linking words “configured to generate operational design domain determination information” & “configured to receive global route information” are the functional trigger language that recite the function being performed. The claim lacks sufficient structural meaning to avoid mean-plus-function interpretation. The term is described primarily by its function without details of the underlying implementation, algorithms, or specific hardware architecture that would provide definite structural boundaries.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “driving mode is preferenced” & “multi-layer operational domain definition”
Claim 9 recites: “driving mode is preferenced” & “multi-layer operational design domain”
Claim 16 recites: “whether to execute a degraded automated driving mode” & “results of determining an operational design domain…in a process of performing the autonomous driving”
The phrase “preferenced” is vague has its unclear to what degree of preference is required for an automated driving mode. In addition, it’s uncertain what comprises or represents a layer, how many layers are considered “multi-layer” with regards to an operational domain definition (ODD).
Further determining “whether to execute” is ambiguous, for example does it mean deciding if degraded mode should be, can be or when to transition? It is unclear what “degraded automated driving mode” encompasses has the specification paragraph 91 describes both maintaining level 3 in rain (not degraded) while dropping to level 2 in the snow (degraded), thus the phrase “degraded” is used inconsistently. Determining an automation level depends on determining the ODD, however claim 16 recites that ODD is monitored in a process of performing autonomous driving which is contradictory. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of these limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has they inherit the deficiency of the Independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to “driving method…” (process). Claim 16 is directed to a vehicle (machine). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claims 9 and 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]).
Claim 9. A dynamic automation level-based autonomous driving method performed by a dynamic automation level-based autonomous driving system, comprising:
planning, by a route server, a global route so that an automated driving mode is preferenced [mental process]; and
(b) monitoring, by an autonomous vehicle, a driving situation while driving along the global route [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, pre-solution activity, data gathering], and
performing autonomous driving while changing an automation level in consideration of a multi-layer operational design domain [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]
Claim 16, A dynamic automation level-based autonomous vehicle comprising:
an input unit configured to receive global route information [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering, pre-solution activity];
a memory configured to store a program for performing autonomous driving by using the global route information [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]; and
a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]
determines an automation level and whether to execute a degraded automated driving mode according to a result of determining an operational design domain [mental process];
monitored in a process of performing the autonomous driving [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering, pre-solution activity].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 9 recites route planning which involves mental analysis, while preference is prioritizing and amounts to a decision-making process which is a mental process. Further claim 16 recites the process of making a determination which is a decision-making analysis that can be performed mentally, for example a user based on the weather conditions can determine an appropriate automation level and whether it should be executed in a particular mode based on review of an operational design. These steps fall under a mental process that involve observation, evaluation and judgements.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
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 additional limitations of “monitoring…a driving situation” & “performing autonomous driving” & “an input unit configured to receive” & “monitored in a process of performing”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering via monitoring during autonomous driving & receiving route information. In addition, performing autonomous driving amounts to post-solution activity has it is the result or application of the abstract decisions of route planning and determination of autonomous levels. Also, it falls in the field of use has autonomous vehicles perform autonomous driving.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a memory configured to” & “a processor configured to”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for storing and executing a driving program. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 10, 13 and 17, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe receiving continuous data collection, collecting multiple types of input information, acquiring weather/road information and collecting sensor data, which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering (pre-solution activity). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 12, 14 and 18, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe outputting results which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (post-solution) activity. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 15 and 19-20, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe determining degraded mode, determining whether to limit driving speed and determining whether to prohibit lane changes, which involves categorization and decision-making based on conditions. These steps fall under a mental process that involve observation, evaluation and judgements. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 11, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes cost calculation logic which is a mathematical concept that involves optimization of gathered data. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 1-8, - do describe significantly more than an abstract idea has the autonomous vehicle is configured to drive along the global route with changes to its automation levels.
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 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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panahandeh herein ‘Pan (U.S. Pub 2022/0178710, filed Dec. 3, 2021) in view of Sujan (U.S. Pub 2019/0354101, filed May 20, 2019).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Pan discloses A dynamic automation level-based autonomous driving system comprising:
a route server configured to generate operational design domain determination information and to plan a global route so that an automated driving mode is preferenced (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11, 22 & 34, discloses a route planning system that plans a global route via road segment selection in an off-board server that derives traffic information via feeding to a neural network ensuring greatest extent of travelling within ODD requirements); and
an autonomous vehicle configured to drive along the global route, to change automation levels by using multi-layer operational design domain definition information and driving situation monitoring information, and to perform autonomous driving (see paragraph 6 & fig. 1, discloses an autonomous vehicle (2) that drives along the route and accounts for multi-layer operational design domain information such as those outlined in paragraphs 35-36 via environmental and traffic conditions, speed etc.). Pan discloses route planning to maximize travel within ODD requirements that are multi-layer so that automated driving mode is preferenced (see paragraph 6). Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan teaches dynamically adjusting automation levels based on operating conditions and further using a remote vehicle controller that corresponds to the route server and automation level changing (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework as it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Pan discloses wherein the route server receives the multi-layer operational design domain definition information and destination information from the autonomous vehicle, and plans the global route (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11 & 22, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Pan discloses wherein the route server generates the operational design domain determination information by using basic information received from at least one of an infrastructure edge roadside unit, a preceding vehicle, and an external agency server (see paragraph 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 3, Pan discloses wherein the basic information comprises at least one of weather information, road construction information, and road surface condition information (see paragraph 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein the route server transmits an expected automation level for each link to the autonomous vehicle (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, Pan discloses wherein the autonomous vehicle monitors in real-time whether a current driving situation falls within an operational design domain by using a weather sensor (see paragraph 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 6, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein, when it is confirmed that automation conditions are changed, the autonomous vehicle performs autonomous driving by changing the automation levels (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 6, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein the autonomous vehicle performs autonomous driving by determining a degraded automated driving mode set for each of the automation levels (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Independent claim 9, Pan discloses A dynamic automation level-based autonomous driving method performed by a dynamic automation level-based autonomous driving system, comprising:
planning, by a route server, a global route so that an automated driving mode is preferenced (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11, 22 & 34, discloses a route planning system that plans a global route via road segment selection in an off-board server that derives traffic information via feeding to a neural network ensuring greatest extent of travelling within ODD requirements); and
(b) monitoring, by an autonomous vehicle, a driving situation while driving along the global route, and performing autonomous driving while changing an automation level in consideration of a multi-layer operational design domain (see paragraph 6 & fig. 1, discloses an autonomous vehicle (2) that drives along the route and accounts for multi-layer operational design domain information such as those outlined in paragraphs 35-36 via environmental and traffic conditions, speed etc.). Pan discloses route planning to maximize travel within ODD requirements that are multi-layer so that automated driving mode is preferenced (see paragraph 6). Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan teaches dynamically adjusting automation levels based on operating conditions and further using a remote vehicle controller that corresponds to the route server and automation level changing (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 9, Pan discloses wherein, in (a), the global route is planned by confirming destination setting information, maximum autonomous driving route search option selection information, and definition information on the multi-layer operational design domain (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11 & 22, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 9, Pan discloses wherein, in (a), operational design domain determination information is generated using weather information and irregular road information, and the global route is planned using a cost calculation logic (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11 & 22, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 9, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein, in (a), information on the global route comprising an automation level corresponding to a link is transmitted to the autonomous vehicle (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 9, Pan discloses wherein, in (b), the automation level is determined using weather information acquired using a weather sensor installed in the autonomous vehicle, road information acquired using a recognition sensor installed in the autonomous vehicle, weather information received from an infrastructure, and road information received from the infrastructure (see paragraph 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 13, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein, in (b), the determined automation level is transmitted to the route server to be used for a route search request of a following vehicle (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 9, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein, in (b), the autonomous driving is performed by determining a degraded automated driving mode set in advance in relation to the automation level (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Independent claim 16, Pan discloses A dynamic automation level-based autonomous vehicle comprising:
an input unit configured to receive global route information (see abstract & Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11, 22, discloses receiving by a route planning system, global route information has input via digital map covering road segments based on vehicle geolocation);
a memory configured to store a program for performing autonomous driving by using the global route information (see paragraph 80, discloses a memory that stores the route planning system for performing autonomous driving based on the map and road segment information); and
a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor determines an automation level and whether to execute a degraded automated driving mode according to a result of determining an operational design domain monitored in a process of performing the autonomous driving (see paragraph 6 & fig. 1, discloses an autonomous vehicle (2) that drives along the route and accounts for multi-layer operational design domain information such as those outlined in paragraphs 35-36 via environmental and traffic conditions, speed etc.). Pan discloses route planning to maximize travel within ODD requirements that are multi-layer so that automated driving mode is preferenced (see paragraph 6). Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels to a degraded diving mode based on the ODD. Sujan teaches dynamically adjusting automation levels based on operating conditions and further using a remote vehicle controller that corresponds to the route server and automation level changing (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). In paragraphs 38-39 he discloses that when sensors are degraded than the controller becomes incapable of achieving the desired target and thus results in change of the authority level to ensure more human control. It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment including degraded driving mode resulting in change of automation control within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 16, Pan discloses wherein the input unit receives weather information and road condition information acquired by a sensor installed in the vehicle and an external infrastructure, and the processor generates an operational design domain determination result by using the weather information and the road condition information (see paragraph 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 17, Pan discloses wherein the processor transmits the operational design domain determination result to a route server having transmitted the global route information (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs 4-11 & 22, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 19, with dependency of claim 17, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein the processor determines whether to execute the degraded automated driving mode that limits a driving speed, by using the operational design domain determination result (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claim 20, with dependency of claim 17, Pan however fails to teach dynamically adjusting automation levels. Sujan discloses wherein the processor determines whether to execute the degraded automated driving mode that prohibits a lane change function, by using the operational design domain determination result (see paragraphs 19, 24, 27 and 31). It would have been for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated dynamic automation level adjustment within the ODD optimized route planning framework has it maximizes safe autonomous operation in varying conditions while optimizing fuel economy as outlined by Sijan in paragraph 3.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
12/10/2025