DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 23, 2024 is considered by
the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed
toward an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a device with memory and a processor which involves determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates, deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using sensors installed in the vehicle, determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required and actual deceleration, and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions;
and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions comprise:
determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates;
deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle;
determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration;
and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining” and “deriving”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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, a memory and processor are provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, these features are
mere computers and do not give practical application to the identification and instruction steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 1 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the
judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 uses the limitation of “determining whether the acceleration override has occurred when it is determined that the driving controller is in a communication failure state and the braking controller is in a normal state during the MRM mode”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of
insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 uses the limitations of “periodically transmitting a first message to the driving controller” and “determining that the driving controller is in a communication failure state when a response message on the first message is not received from the driving controller”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 uses the limitations of “receiving information on a surrounding situation of the vehicle from the one or more sensors” and “deriving the required deceleration based on the information on the surrounding situation of the vehicle”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 uses the limitations of “transmitting the required deceleration to the braking controller”, “deriving a speed of the vehicle from wheel speed information of the vehicle measured using the wheel speed sensor, while deceleration control based on the required deceleration is performed”, and “deriving the actual deceleration of the vehicle based on the speed of the vehicle” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 uses the limitations of “detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value” and “determining whether the acceleration override has occurred based on whether a maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to a reference time”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 uses the limitations of “determining that the determination section terminates when the difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration after the first point in time has a value outside a buffer range”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 uses the limitations of “determining that acceleration override has occurred when the maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to the reference time” and “releasing the MRM mode and determining the driving control subject to be a driver when it is determined that acceleration override has occurred” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 uses the limitations of “determining whether a driver is looking ahead based on driver monitoring information measured using the driver monitoring sensor” and “determining the driving control subject to be the driver when it is determined that the driver is looking ahead” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 10,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed toward a vehicle control method performed by a computing device consisting of a processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions, and which comprises: determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates, deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using sensors installed in the vehicle, determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required and actual deceleration, and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
A vehicle control method performed by a computing device including a processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions, the vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates;
deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle;
determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration;
and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining” and “deriving”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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, a device (which consists of a memory and processor) is provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, these features are mere computers and do not give practical application to the identification and instruction steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 10 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 11-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the
judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 uses the limitations of “determining whether the driving controller is in a communication failure state” and “determining whether the braking controller is in a normal state” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 12 uses the limitations of “periodically transmitting a first message to the driving controller” and “determining whether a response message on the first message is received from the driving controller; wherein it is determined that the driving controller is in a communication failure state when a response message on the first message is not received from the driving controller” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 uses the limitations of “receiving information on a surrounding situation of the vehicle from the one or more sensors” and “deriving the required deceleration based on the information on the surrounding situation of the vehicle” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 uses the limitations of “transmitting the required deceleration to the braking controller”, “receiving wheel speed information of the vehicle measured using the wheel speed sensor while deceleration control based on the required deceleration is performed”, “deriving a speed of the vehicle from the wheel speed information of the vehicle”, and “deriving the actual deceleration of the vehicle based on the speed of the vehicle” which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 15 uses the limitations of “detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value” and “determining whether the acceleration override has occurred based on whether a maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to a reference time”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 16 uses the limitation of “determining that the determination section terminates when the difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration after the first point in time has a value outside a buffer range”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 17 uses the limitations of “determining of whether the acceleration override has occurred” and “determining of the driving control subject of the vehicle”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 18 uses the limitations of “receiving driver monitoring information measured using the driver monitoring sensor”, “determining whether a driver is looking ahead based on the driver monitoring information”, “determining of the driving control subject of the vehicle, the driving control subject is determined based on whether the driver is looking ahead”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 19,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed toward a system with sensors and a vehicle control device which is configured to determine whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates, derive a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using sensors installed in the vehicle, determine whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required and actual deceleration, and determine a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (a machine). Therefore, claim 19 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 19 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 19 recites:
A vehicle system comprising:
one or more sensors;
and a vehicle control device configured to:
determine whether a driving controller and a braking controller are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates;
derive a required deceleration and actual deceleration using one or more sensors;
determine whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration;
and determine a driving control subject of a vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine” and “derive”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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, a sensor and vehicle control device are provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, these features are mere computers and do not give practical application to the identification and instruction steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 20 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 20 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent
eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the
judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 uses the limitations of “determine whether acceleration override has occurred” and “determined to be in a normal state during the MRM mode”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, et al. (U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 20250065919) in view of Oba (U.S. Patent No. 12497082) and in further view of Sato (European Patent Application Publication No. 4155152).
Regarding claim 1, Yu, et al. teaches: A vehicle control device comprising: a memory storing computer-executable instructions; (Paragraph [0149]: "Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module [memory storing computer-executable instructions]")
and a processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions comprise: (Paragraph [0149]: "Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module [executes instructions stored in memory]." ; Paragraph [0032]: "The automated driving controller (110) generates and outputs control instructions for operating the automated vehicle (10). It is classified into various modules based on the processor's function to control behavior during automated driving [processor executes instructions stored in memory].")
determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates; (Paragraph [0036]: "…the automated driving controller (110) may be classified into a first controller and a second controller. The first controller may serve as a basic controller and include modules for low-level driving control [acceleration and braking controller], while the second controller may include modules for higher-level practical automated driving control [automated driving controller]." ; Paragraph [0027]: "Specifically, the HVI module (130) may detect the driver's status through a vision sensor or various other sensors while simultaneously detecting and analyzing the driving mode or external driving environment of the vehicle (10). It can assess operational loads or abnormal situations and inform the driver through various interfaces [determining whether controllers are abnormal]." ; Paragraph [0033]: "Additionally, the automated driving controller (110) may include a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) module for executing MRM and a module for performing normal or emergency stops based on the MRM [operational MRM mode].").
Yu, et al. does not teach deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated driving control), Oba teaches: deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle; (Col. 13, lines 5-11: "…the acceleration/deceleration control unit (10172) calculates a control target value to be used by the driving force generation device or the braking device for implementation of the planned acceleration, deceleration, or sudden stop, and supplies a control command indicating the calculated control target value to the drive system control unit (10107) [deriving required and actual deceleration]." ; Col. 6, lines 29-32: "The data acquisition unit (10102) includes devices such as various sensors that acquire data used for processing of the vehicle control system (10100), and supplies the acquired data to individual units of the vehicle control system (10100) [data collected from sensors].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Oba based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the transfer of a vehicle control system between automated driving and manual-controlled driving (Oba Col. 4, lines 36-47).
The combination of Yu, et al. and Oba does not teach determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; (Paragraph [0055]: "The automated driving system as described above enables override by the driver’s operation intervention not only during the operation of the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) but also during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) [override] […] That is, when the override (accelerator OR yet brake OR) by the driver’s acceleration/deceleration operation intervention or the override (steering OR) by the driver’s steering intervention is performed, each automated driving function described above is stopped [acceleration override based on deceleration values]")
and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (Paragraph [0056]: "When the risk minimization control (MRM) described above is activated, control is performed to activate hazard lamps and decelerate and stop at predetermined deceleration (for example, 4.0 m/s2 or less) while maintaining the driving lane [driving control based on determination of acceleration override]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yu, et al. and Oba to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise determining whether the acceleration override has occurred when it is determined that the driving controller is in a communication failure state and the braking controller is in a normal state during the MRM mode (Sato Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [braking controller is in normal state]; [...] or a brake operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined brake override threshold value is detected, the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops, and the operation shifts to manual driving (step 140) [automatic driving controller is in a communication failure state during MRM mode].").
Regarding claim 3, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 2, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further comprise: periodically transmitting a first message to the driving controller; (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0028]: "The communication unit (140) is a device for transmitting […] data from external sources using various information and communication technologies, such as a telematics system [transmitting message to driving controller].")
and determining that the driving controller is in a communication failure state when a response message on the first message is not received from the driving controller (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0034]: "However, these internal components of the automated driving controller (110) [driving controller] may be integrated and operated as a single system. Consequently, the entire automated driving system (100) may become inoperative due to a failure in a communication line related to the sensor or a power supply issue [communication failure state when message is not received from driving controller].").
Regarding claim 4, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise: receiving information on a surrounding situation of the vehicle from the one or more sensors; (Oba Col. 7, lines 47-51: "…the data acquisition unit (10102) includes an environment sensor for detecting weather, or the like, and a surrounding information detection sensor for detecting an object around the own vehicle [vehicle receiving information about surrounding situation from sensors].")
and deriving the required deceleration based on the information on the surrounding situation of the vehicle (Oba Col. 6, lines 29-32: "The data acquisition unit (10102) includes devices such as various sensors that acquire data used for processing of the vehicle control system (10100), and supplies the acquired data to individual units of the vehicle control system (10100) [sensor based data goes to vehicle control system]." ; Oba Col. 12, lines 37-43: "The operation planning unit (10163) plans the operation of the own vehicle for implementing the action planned by the action planning unit (10162) based on data or signals from each unit of the vehicle control system (10100), […] the operation planning unit (10163) plans acceleration, deceleration [deriving deceleration based on data]").
Regarding claim 5, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 4, wherein the one or more sensors include a wheel speed sensor, and wherein the instructions further comprise: (Sato Paragraph [0016]: "The internal sensor (22) is composed of a plurality of detection means, such as a vehicle speed sensor, a yaw rate sensor and an acceleration sensor, for measuring physical quantities representing the vehicle’s moving state [sensors needed to derive wheel speed]" ; Sato Paragraph [0025]: "The automated driving controller (10) (vehicle control part (13)) estimates the speed, by a front wheel steering angle δ occurring when a steering torque T is applied to the steering mechanism (41) during traveling at a vehicle speed V […] and gives a speed command [...] to the ACC controller (14) [wheel speed sensor - derived value]")
transmitting the required deceleration to the braking controller; (Sato Paragraph [0027]: "The ESP/ABS controller (33) that has received a deceleration command from the ACC controller (14) issues a hydraulic command to an actuator and controls braking force of the brake (43) to control the vehicle speed [transmission of required deceleration to braking controller].")
deriving a speed of the vehicle from wheel speed information of the vehicle measured using the wheel speed sensor, while deceleration control based on the required deceleration is performed; (Sato Paragraph [0027]: "…the engine controller (32) that has received an acceleration/deceleration command [deceleration] from the ACC controller (14) controls an actuator output (degree of throttle opening) to give the engine (42) a torque command and controls driving force to control the vehicle speed [deriving vehicle speed from wheel speed sensor].")
and deriving the actual deceleration of the vehicle based on the speed of the vehicle (Sato Paragraph [0056]: "When the risk minimization control (MRM) described above is activated, control is performed to activate hazard lamps and decelerate and stop at predetermined deceleration (for example, 4.0 m/s2 or less) while maintaining the driving lane [determine actual acceleration from controller speed value]").
Regarding claim 6, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, Yu, et al. teaches: The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise: and determining whether the acceleration override has occurred based on whether a maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to a reference time (Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [maintenance time of determination section is greater than or equal to reference time]." ; Paragraph [0116]: "…the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Yu, et al. does not teach detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value (Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [determination section]; […] an accelerator operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined accelerator override threshold value [difference between required and actual deceleration is greater than or equal to reference value]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 6, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 6, wherein the instructions further comprise determining that the determination section terminates when the difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration after the first point in time has a value outside a buffer range (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Yu, et al. Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [buffer zone for deceleration measurement differences]." Yu, et al. Paragraph [0116]: "…the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Regarding claim 8, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 6, and in a further embodiment, Yu, et al. teaches: The vehicle control device of claim 6, wherein the instructions further comprise: determining that acceleration override has occurred when the maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to the reference time (Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [maintenance time of determination section is greater than or equal to reference time]." ; Paragraph [0116]: "…the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Yu, et al. does not teach and releasing the MRM mode and determining the driving control subject to be a driver when it is determined that acceleration override has occurred.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: releasing the MRM mode and determining the driving control subject to be a driver when it is determined that acceleration override has occurred (Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [determination section]; […] an accelerator operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined accelerator override threshold value [difference between required and actual deceleration is greater than or equal to reference value], […] the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops, and the operation shifts to manual driving (step 140) [MRM mode is released].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a driver monitoring sensor, and wherein the instructions further comprise: (Oba Col. 91, lines 37-39: "starts constant monitoring of the driver in step (S301) to index the wakefulness level and the attention level of the driver [driving monitoring sensor].")
determining whether a driver is looking ahead based on driver monitoring information measured using the driver monitoring sensor; (Oba Col. 91, lines 40-46: "Note that the driver personal recovery characteristic dictionary (81) can include, for example, a body model and a head model of the driver to be described below monitoring information], […] the eyes [looking ahead]")
and determining the driving control subject to be the driver when it is determined that the driver is looking ahead (Oba Col. 91, line 65 to Col. 92, lines 1-4: "In the next step (S304), the automated driving control unit (10112) monitors the driver, detects the driver's wakefulness and attention reduction state accompanying the continuous use of the automated driving at the driving automation level 3, and also monitors the standby state of the driver recovery to the manual-controlled driving [determining driving control as a function of whether driver is looking ahead]").
Regarding claim 10, Yu, et al. teaches: A vehicle control method performed by a computing device including a processor and a memory storing computer-executable instructions, (Paragraphs [0149]: "Software code may be implemented as a software application written in a suitable programming language. The software code may be stored in a memory module and executed by the control module [executes instructions stored in memory]." ; Paragraph [0032]: "The automated driving controller (110) generates and outputs control instructions for operating the automated vehicle (10). It is classified into various modules based on the processor's function to control behavior during automated driving [processor executes instructions stored in memory].")
the vehicle control method comprising: determining whether a driving controller and a braking controller of a vehicle are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates; (Paragraph [0030]: "…the automated driving controller (110) may be classified into a first controller and a second controller. The first controller may serve as a basic controller and include modules for low-level driving control [acceleration and braking controller], while the second controller may include modules for higher-level practical automated driving control [automated driving controller]." ; Paragraph [0040]: "The domain control unit (DCU) (160) may be configured to control the sensors, actuators, and other components required for driving the vehicle. [controller for vehicle behavior]" ; Step (S18), Paragraph [0068]: "If no abnormalities are found, the DCU (160) may display the automated driving mode using the HVI module (130) for the user to recognize the corresponding mode (S18) [vehicle controller determines abnormalities]." ; Steps (S114-S124), Paragraph [0105]: "…MRM may be activated when the vehicle is unable to continue automated driving due to an error or breakdown in all or part of the automated driving system and its major components (S114), and the driver fails to take over the driving control (S124) [MRM activates when controllers fail]." ; Steps (S138-S140), Paragraph [0109]: "Next, the DCU (160) may activate the MRM (S138) and display an MRM mode interface using the HVI module (130) to indicate the activation of the MRM, even if the driver fails to intervene (S140) [controller activates MRM mode].").
Yu, et al. does not teach deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated driving control), Oba teaches: deriving a required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle using one or more sensors installed in the vehicle; (Col. 13, lines 5-11: "…the acceleration/deceleration control unit (10172) calculates a control target value to be used by the driving force generation device or the braking device for implementation of the planned acceleration, deceleration, or sudden stop, and supplies a control command indicating the calculated control target value to the drive system control unit (10107) [deriving required and actual deceleration]." ; Col. 6, lines 29-32: "The data acquisition unit (10102) includes devices such as various sensors that acquire data used for processing of the vehicle control system (10100), and supplies the acquired data to individual units of the vehicle control system (10100) [data collected from sensors].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Oba based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the transfer of a vehicle control system between automated driving and manual-controlled driving (Oba Col. 4, lines 36-47).
The combination of Yu, et al. and Oba does not teach determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: determining whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; (Steps (136-140), Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [override]; when a steering intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined steering override threshold value, an accelerator operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined accelerator override threshold value, or a brake operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined brake override threshold value is detected, the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops [acceleration override based on deceleration values]")
and determining a driving control subject of the vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (Steps (132-133), Paragraph [0081]: "When the operation shifts to the risk minimization control (MRM), at the same time as the hazard lamps are activated (step (132)), the minimal risk maneuver (MRM) activates (step (133)), and the automated driving controller (10) starts control to decelerate and stop at the predetermined deceleration (for example, 4.0 m/s2 or less) while staying in the driving lane [driving control based on determination of acceleration override].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yu, et al. and Oba to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether there is an abnormality in the driving controller and the braking controller of the vehicle includes: determining whether the driving controller is in a communication failure state; (Sato Step (140), Paragraph [0075]: "...or a brake operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined brake override threshold value is detected, the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops, and the operation shifts to manual driving (step 140) [automatic driving controller is in a communication failure state].")
and determining whether the braking controller is in a normal state (Sato Step (113), Paragraph [0075]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the emergency avoidance control (automatic emergency braking) also (step 113) [braking controller is in normal state]").
Regarding claim 12, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the driving controller is in a communication failure state includes: periodically transmitting a first message to the driving controller; (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0028]: "The communication unit (140) is a device for transmitting […] data from external sources using various information and communication technologies, such as a telematics system [transmitting message to driving controller].")
and determining whether a response message on the first message is received from the driving controller; (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0028]: "The communication unit (140) is a device for […] receiving data from external sources using various information and communication technologies, such as a telematics system [receiving message to driving controller].")
wherein it is determined that the driving controller is in a communication failure state when a response message on the first message is not received from the driving controller (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0034]: "However, these internal components of the automated driving controller (110) [driving controller] may be integrated and operated as a single system. Consequently, the entire automated driving system (100) may become inoperative due to a failure in a communication line related to the sensor or a power supply issue [communication failure state when message is not received from driving controller].").
Regarding claim 13, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the deriving of the required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle includes: receiving information on a surrounding situation of the vehicle from the one or more sensors; (Oba Col. 7, lines 47-51: "…the data acquisition unit (10102) includes an environment sensor for detecting weather, or the like, and a surrounding information detection sensor for detecting an object around the own vehicle [vehicle receiving information about surrounding situation from sensors].")
and deriving the required deceleration based on the information on the surrounding situation of the vehicle (Oba Col. 6, lines 29-32: "The data acquisition unit (10102) includes devices such as various sensors that acquire data used for processing of the vehicle control system (10100), and supplies the acquired data to individual units of the vehicle control system (10100) [sensor based data goes to vehicle control system]." ; Oba Col. 12, lines 37-43: "The operation planning unit (10163) plans the operation of the own vehicle for implementing the action planned by the action planning unit (10162) based on data or signals from each unit of the vehicle control system (10100), […] the operation planning unit (10163) plans acceleration, deceleration [deriving deceleration based on data]").
Regarding claim 14, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 13, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 13, wherein the one or more sensors include a wheel speed sensor, and the deriving of the required deceleration and actual deceleration of the vehicle further includes: (Sato Paragraph [0016]: "The internal sensor (22) is composed of a plurality of detection means, such as a vehicle speed sensor, a yaw rate sensor and an acceleration sensor, for measuring physical quantities representing the vehicle’s moving state [sensors needed to derive wheel speed]" ; Sato Paragraph [0025]: "The automated driving controller (10) (vehicle control part (13)) estimates the speed, by a front wheel steering angle δ occurring when a steering torque T is applied to the steering mechanism (41) during traveling at a vehicle speed V […] and gives a speed command [...] to the ACC controller (14) [wheel speed sensor - derived value]")
transmitting the required deceleration to the braking controller; (Sato Paragraph [0027]: "The ESP/ABS controller (33) that has received a deceleration command from the ACC controller (14) issues a hydraulic command to an actuator and controls braking force of the brake (43) to control the vehicle speed [transmission of required deceleration to braking controller].")
receiving wheel speed information of the vehicle measured using the wheel speed sensor while deceleration control based on the required deceleration is performed; (Sato Paragraph [0027]: "…the engine controller (32) that has received an acceleration/deceleration command [deceleration] from the ACC controller (14) controls an actuator output (degree of throttle opening) to give the engine (42) a torque command and controls driving force to control the vehicle speed [deriving vehicle speed from wheel speed sensor].")
deriving a speed of the vehicle from the wheel speed information of the vehicle; (Sato Paragraph [0025]: "The automated driving controller (10) (vehicle control part (13)) estimates the speed, by a front wheel steering angle δ occurring when a steering torque T is applied to the steering mechanism (41) during traveling at a vehicle speed V […] and gives a speed command [...] to the ACC controller (14) [wheel speed sensor - derived speed value]")
and deriving the actual deceleration of the vehicle based on the speed of the vehicle (Sato Paragraph [0056]: "When the risk minimization control (MRM) described above is activated, control is performed to activate hazard lamps and decelerate and stop at predetermined deceleration (for example, 4.0 m/s2 or less) while maintaining the driving lane [determine actual acceleration from controller speed value]").
Regarding claim 15, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, Yu, et al. teaches: The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether acceleration override has occurred includes: and determining whether the acceleration override has occurred based on whether a maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to a reference time (Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [maintenance time of determination section is greater than or equal to reference time]." ; Paragraph [0116]: "…the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Yu, et al. does not teach detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: detecting a determination section including a first point in time at which a difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value (Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [determination section]; […] an accelerator operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined accelerator override threshold value [difference between required and actual deceleration is greater than or equal to reference value]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 15, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein the detecting of the determination section includes determining that the determination section terminates when the difference between the required deceleration and the actual deceleration after the first point in time has a value outside a buffer range (Yu, et al. Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Yu, et al. Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [buffer zone for deceleration measurement differences]." ; Yu, et al. Paragraph [0116]: "…the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Regarding claim 17, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 15, and in a further embodiment, Yu, et al. teaches: The vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein, in the determining of whether the acceleration override has occurred, when the maintenance time of the determination section is greater than or equal to the reference time, it is determined that acceleration override has occurred (Paragraph [0039]: "The actuator (120) may be a mechanical device responsible for the actual driving of the vehicle (10), implemented as an actuator for steering, acceleration, or deceleration [deceleration measurements]." ; Paragraph [0113]: "…the MRM may request a safe zone based on the predicted deviation point and deviation time when the activated MRM anticipates that the vehicle (10) will approach and then deviate from the ODD [maintenance time of determination section is greater than or equal to reference time]." ; Paragraph [0116]: "In detail, the MRM may enable fallback before the deviation time by considering the speed and braking distance of the vehicle (10), road traffic congestion, or other factors at the deviation time [integration of deceleration measurements with respect to point in time].").
Yu, et al. does not teach and in the determining of the driving control subject of the vehicle, when it is determined that acceleration override has occurred, the MRM mode is released and the driving control subject is determined to be a driver.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: and in the determining of the driving control subject of the vehicle, when it is determined that acceleration override has occurred, the MRM mode is released and the driving control subject is determined to be a driver (Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [determination section]; […] an accelerator operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined accelerator override threshold value [difference between required and actual deceleration is greater than or equal to reference value], […] the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops, and the operation shifts to manual driving (step 140) [MRM mode is released].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 18, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors include a driver monitoring sensor, (Oba Col. 91, lines 37-39: "starts constant monitoring of the driver in step (S301) to index the wakefulness level and the attention level of the driver [driving monitoring sensor].")
and wherein the vehicle control method further includes: receiving driver monitoring information measured using the driver monitoring sensor; (Oba Step (S301), Col. 91, lines 37-39: "starts constant monitoring of the driver in step (S301) to index the wakefulness level and the attention level of the driver [receiving information about driver through monitoring sensor].")
and determining whether a driver is looking ahead based on the driver monitoring information; (Oba Col. 91, lines 40-46: "Note that the driver personal recovery characteristic dictionary (81) can include, for example, a body model and a head model of the driver to be described below monitoring information], […] the eyes [looking ahead].")
and in the determining of the driving control subject of the vehicle, the driving control subject is determined based on whether the driver is looking ahead (Oba Step (S304), Col. 91, line 65 to Col. 92, lines 1-4: "In the next step (S304), the automated driving control unit (10112) monitors the driver, detects the driver's wakefulness and attention reduction state accompanying the continuous use of the automated driving at the driving automation level 3, and also monitors the standby state of the driver recovery to the manual-controlled driving [determining driving control as a function of whether driver is looking ahead]").
Regarding claim 19, Yu, et al. teaches: A vehicle system comprising: (Paragraph [0024]: "FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the configuration of an automated driving system (ADS) (100) in a vehicle (10) according to an embodiment of the present invention [system].")
one or more sensors; (Paragraph [0025]: "a sensor unit (150) [sensor]")
and a vehicle control device configured to: (Paragraph [0025]: "an automated driving controller (110) [vehicle control device]")
determine whether a driving controller and a braking controller are abnormal when a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode operates; (Paragraph [0036]: "…the automated driving controller (110) may be classified into a first controller and a second controller. The first controller may serve as a basic controller and include modules for low-level driving control [acceleration and braking controller], while the second controller may include modules for higher-level practical automated driving control [automated driving controller]." ; Paragraph [0027]: "Specifically, the HVI module (130) may detect the driver's status through a vision sensor or various other sensors while simultaneously detecting and analyzing the driving mode or external driving environment of the vehicle (10). It can assess operational loads or abnormal situations and inform the driver through various interfaces [determining whether controllers are abnormal]." ; Paragraph [0033]: "Additionally, the automated driving controller (110) may include a minimal risk maneuver (MRM) module for executing MRM and a module for performing normal or emergency stops based on the MRM [operational MRM mode].").
Yu, et al. does not teach derive a required deceleration and actual deceleration using one or more sensors.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated driving control), Oba teaches: derive a required deceleration and actual deceleration using one or more sensors; (Col. 13, lines 5-11: "…the acceleration/deceleration control unit (10172) calculates a control target value to be used by the driving force generation device or the braking device for implementation of the planned acceleration, deceleration, or sudden stop, and supplies a control command indicating the calculated control target value to the drive system control unit (10107) [deriving required and actual deceleration]." ; Col. 6, lines 29-32: "The data acquisition unit (10102) includes devices such as various sensors that acquire data used for processing of the vehicle control system (10100), and supplies the acquired data to individual units of the vehicle control system (10100) [data collected from sensors].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, et al. to include the teaching of Oba based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the transfer of a vehicle control system between automated driving and manual-controlled driving (Oba Col. 4, lines 36-47).
The combination of Yu, et al. and Oba does not teach determine whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; and determine a driving control subject of a vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving control), Sato teaches: determine whether acceleration override has occurred based on the required deceleration and the actual deceleration; (Paragraph [0055]: "The automated driving system as described above enables override by the driver’s operation intervention not only during the operation of the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) but also during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) [override] […] That is, when the override (accelerator OR yet brake OR) by the driver’s acceleration/deceleration operation intervention or the override (steering OR) by the driver’s steering intervention is performed, each automated driving function described above is stopped [acceleration override based on deceleration values]")
and determine a driving control subject of a vehicle based on a result of determining whether the acceleration override has occurred (Paragraph [0056]: "When the risk minimization control (MRM) described above is activated, control is performed to activate hazard lamps and decelerate and stop at predetermined deceleration (for example, 4.0 m/s2 or less) while maintaining the driving lane [driving control based on determination of acceleration override]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yu, et al. and Oba to include the teaching of Sato based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the risk reduction of collision as a byproduct of the implementation of a risk minimization control procedure in the vehicle (Sato Paragraphs [0036] – [0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Yu, et al., Oba, and Sato remain as applied to claim 19, and in a further embodiment, teach: The vehicle system of claim 19, wherein the vehicle control device is configured to determine whether acceleration override has occurred when the driving controller is in a communication failure state and the braking controller is determined to be in a normal state during the MRM mode (Sato Paragraph [0083]: "The determination of whether override has occurred continues during the operation of the risk minimization control (MRM) also (step 136) [braking controller is in normal state]; [...] or a brake operation intervention equal to or greater than a predetermined brake override threshold value is detected, the automatic lane keeping system (ALKS) stops, and the operation shifts to manual driving (step 140) [automatic driving controller is in a communication failure state during MRM mode].").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yashiro, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220203985) teaches a vehicle control device that recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle and a driving controller which controls the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle to cause the vehicle to travel in a variety of modes, including a minimum risk maneuver (MRM) mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights