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 .
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the
reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-173473 filed on 10/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted between 10/02/2024 and 03/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang Mingyu et al. (US20210061299A1), hereinafter referred to as Mingyu.
Regarding claim 1, Mingyu discloses: a controller that controls an operation of a movable object that is able to travel in self-driving (see at least Mingyu, Fig.2, Item 200, “vehicle control unit); ¶¶ [0035]-[0037] which discloses a controller that controls the switching of driving modes, autonomous and manual), the controller comprising:
a detecting unit configured to, when the movable object is traveling in self-driving, detect occurrence of an abnormal state including an abnormal stop on the movable object (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0033], [0038], [0040]-[0042], which discloses a drive state monitor that actively obtains sensor data regarding a vehicle control environment and compares data structures in order to determine whether the driving mode can be changed relative to discovering a switching state (abnormal condition) that may be prompted from, but not limited to, conditions such as four-way stops, stop-and-go traffic (which warrants abrupt stops with no pattern), exceeding a speed limit, presence of other vehicles (overtaking, or switching lanes), etc., this means a detecting unit configured to, when the movable object is traveling in self-driving, detect occurrence of an abnormal state including an abnormal stop on the movable object)
a control unit (see at least Mingyu, Fig.2, Item 200, “vehicle control unit); ¶¶ [0035]-[0037] which discloses a controller that controls the switching of driving modes, autonomous and manual), wherein:
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) a predetermined first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving of the movable object (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042] discloses a condition of using weighted values (perceived from determining the driving state condition via sensor data of environment) to determine whether a predetermined first condition is satisfied, and the control unit effectively keeps the movable object in autonomous mode, rather than switching to manual mode, this means when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) a predetermined first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving of the movable object)
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, the control unit is configured not to execute control to resume the self-driving (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041] discloses a condition of using weighted values (perceived from determining the driving state condition via sensor data of environment) to determine whether a predetermined first condition is satisfied, and the control unit effectively switches from autonomous to manual mode, this means when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) a predetermined first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to not execute control to resume the self-driving of the movable object)
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.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mingyu in view of Yoshinaga Satoshi et al. (US2023256998A1), hereinafter referred to as Satoshi.
Regarding claim 2, the controller according to claim 1, wherein the movable object has:
a manned driving mode (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033] which discloses a manual driving mode)
a remote self-driving mode (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033] which discloses a remote self-driving mode)
the manned driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels when a driver in the movable object operates a driver input device provided in the movable object (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0033], [0042], [0057]-[0058] which discloses manual driving mode where the user control the movable object via manual inputs)
Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches:
a remote manual driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043] discloses a remote manual driving mode)
the remote manual driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving a traveling condition, without the driver in the movable object; the traveling condition is a condition generated when an operator operates an operator input device provided in a place different from a place where the movable object is, and the traveling condition defines a traveling behavior of the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0029]-[0030], [0043]-[0045], which discloses remote manual driving mode for an AD vehicle without a driver, that utilizes driving input from remote assistance via operator device separated from the current environment of the moving object [0060]-[0062] which discloses determining the current traveling condition by acquiring vehicle information indicative of whether a vehicle is within an extent of influence; ¶¶ [0040] discloses an example of a travel behavior of a vehicle within an extent of influence, along with a first condition of a vehicle state)
the remote self-driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving the traveling condition generated by the controller, without operating any of the driver input device and the operator input device; when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving while the driving mode of the movable object remains in the remote self-driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0042]-[0043], [0082]-[0083], [0090]-[0092], [0130] which discloses remote self-driving mode where a vehicle state condition triggers an operator intervention however, upon a predetermined condition being satisfied, while in remote operator mode, the vehicle is instructed to continue autonomous driving based on the action plan)
when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, the control unit is configured not to execute control to resume the self-driving in the remote self-driving mode (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0039]-[0040] which discloses the detection of a current driving state (vehicle behavior based on conditions warranted by traffic congestion, road obstacles, construction, etc.) it is determined that remote assistance via an operator is required and autonomous mode is switched to enable operator control)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include a remote manual driving mode, the remote manual driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving a traveling condition, without the driver in the movable object; the traveling condition is a condition generated when an operator operates an operator input device provided in a place different from a place where the movable object is, and the traveling condition defines a traveling behavior of the movable object, the remote self-driving mode is a driving mode in which the movable object travels, by receiving the traveling condition generated by the controller, without operating any of the driver input device and the operator input device; when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to execute control to resume the self-driving while the driving mode of the movable object remains in the remote self-driving mode, and when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected and (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, the control unit is configured not to execute control to resume the self-driving in the remote self-driving mode as taught by Satoshi. Incorporating the teachings would allow for an improvement to the base device of Mingyu that incorporates remote driving assistance, while also reducing an operator workload through determination of vehicle state conditions when in a remote driving mode.
Regarding claim 3, Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches: the controller according to claim 2, wherein, when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected, (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, and (iii) a predetermined second condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to switch the driving mode of the movable object from the remote self-driving mode to the remote manual driving mode (see at least Satoshim ¶¶ [0004], [0039]-[0040] which discloses the detection of a current driving state (vehicle behavior based on conditions warranted by traffic congestion, road obstacles, construction, etc.) it is determined that remote assistance via an operator is required and autonomous mode is switched to enable operator control)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include the controller according to claim 2, wherein, when (i) occurrence of the abnormal state is detected, (ii) the first condition is not satisfied, and (iii) a predetermined second condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to switch the driving mode of the movable object from the remote self-driving mode to the remote manual driving mode as taught by Satoshi. Incorporating the teachings would allow for an improvement to the base device of Mingyu that incorporates remote driving assistance, while also reducing an operator workload through determination of vehicle state conditions when in a remote driving mode.
Regarding claim 4, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a period of time required to resume the self-driving is shorter than or equal to a predetermined time limit (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042] which discloses a first condition involving a period of time the vehicle is in switching state, allowing it to resume self-driving depending on whether the time is shorter or equal to a predetermined time limit)
Regarding claim 5, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is less than or equal to a value M (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is less than or equal to a value M)
Regarding claim 6, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is less than or equal to a value N (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is less than or equal to a value N)
Regarding claim 7, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region)
Regarding claim 8, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 7, wherein,
the predetermined region is any one of a first region, a second region, and a third region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is in a predetermined region which may consist of different detected driving states)
the first region is a region in which another movable object traveling in the self-driving stops at a low frequency (see at least ¶¶ [0037]-[0039], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a predetermined region where another movable object is traveling in the vicinity at a threshold distance/speed)
Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches:
the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route, the scheduled route is set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0060], [0081]-[0084], which discloses the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route as consequence of an impending obstacle detected by the sensor data, the scheduled route is set for the movable object to avoid the obstacle)
the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063] which discloses the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route, the scheduled route is set for the movable object and the third region is a region in which the operator is able to recognize the movable object; and the operator is taking a position and a posture such that the operator is able to operate the operator input device in the third region as taught by Satoshi. Incorporating the teachings would allow for an improvement to the base device of Mingyu that incorporates remote driving assistance, while also reducing an operator workload through determination of vehicle state conditions when in a remote driving mode.
Regarding claim 9, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a yaw rate sensor mounted on the movable object has not broken down (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0022] which discloses a condition that the yaw rate sensor is still operable)
Regarding claim 10, Mingyu is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Satoshi teaches: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0061]-[0063], [0066] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mingyu to include the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that the movable object does not need to travel off a scheduled route set for the movable object, as taught by Satoshi. The examiner would like to note that the disclosure of Mingyu presents a movable object capable of maintaining a planned route, however, travel paths and routes are not as explicitly mentioned as in Satoshi. Incorporating the teaching would allow for the system to make further determination based on the travel route of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is not a bad weather (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0026], [0035], [0038] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is not a bad weather)
Regarding claim 12, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 3, wherein the first condition includes a condition that a line for communication between the movable object and the controller is established (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025]-[0028] which wherein the first condition includes a condition that a line for communication between the movable object and the controller is established)
Regarding claim 13, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 4, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a period of time required to resume the self-driving exceeds the time limit (see at least Mingyu, (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0041]-[0042] which discloses a first condition involving a period of time the vehicle is in switching state, allowing it to resume self-driving depending on whether the time is shorter or equal to a predetermined time limit)
Regarding claim 14, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 5, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring exceeds the value M (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object in which the abnormal state is occurring is greater than or equal to a value M)
Regarding claim 15, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 6, wherein the second condition includes a condition in which a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving exceeds the value N (see at least ¶¶ [0037], [0064]-[0065], which discloses a vehicle state of whether a moving object is in the vicinity of another vehicle, or vehicles, this means wherein the first condition includes a condition that a total number of the movable object and another movable object traveling in the self-driving is greater than or equal to a value N)
Regarding claim 16, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 7, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the current location of the movable object is not in the predetermined region (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0071] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a current location of the movable object is/is not in a predetermined region)
Regarding claim 17, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 9, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the yaw rate sensor mounted on the movable object has broken down (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0022] which discloses a condition whether the yaw rate sensor is still operable, or not)
Regarding claim 18, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 10, wherein the second condition includes a condition that the movable object needs to travel off the scheduled route set for the movable object (see at least Satoshi, ¶¶ [0060], [0081]-[0084], which discloses the second region is a region in which a distance from a scheduled route to the movable object is shorter than or equal to a predetermined distance when the movable object is off the scheduled route as consequence of an impending obstacle detected by the sensor data, the scheduled route is set for the movable object to avoid the obstacle)
Regarding claim 19, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 11, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is the bad weather (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0026], [0035], [0038] which discloses wherein the first condition includes a condition that a weather around the movable object is a certain weather condition)
Regarding claim 20, Mingyu discloses: the controller according to claim 12, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a duration of a state where communication between the movable object and the controller is stopped is longer than or equal to a predetermined period of time (see at least Mingyu, ¶¶ [0025], [0026], [0033], [0038], [0040]-[0042], which discloses a drive state monitor that actively obtains sensor data regarding a vehicle control environment and compares data structures in order to determine whether the driving mode can be changed relative to discovering a switching state (abnormal condition) that may be prompted from, but not limited to, conditions such as four-way stops, stop-and-go traffic (which warrants abrupt stops with no pattern), exceeding a speed limit, presence of other vehicles (overtaking, or switching lanes), etc., the controller according to claim 12, wherein the second condition includes a condition that a duration of a state where communication between the movable object and the controller is stopped is longer than or equal to a predetermined period of time)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664