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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 04/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 02/19/2021, coinciding with the filing date of the Japan application to which foreign priority was requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada et al. (US12103511, referred to as Terada) in view of Wada et al. (US20180375881, referred to as Wada).
Regarding claim 1: Terada discloses: A manager installed in a vehicle, the manager comprising one or more processors configured to: receive, from a plurality of advanced driver assistance system applications, a plurality of kinematic plans; arbitrate the kinematic plans; calculate a motion request based on an arbitration result; ([col. 14, lines 21-44] the main automatic driving ECU 3 arbitrates, in the braking request arbitration control unit 3C, between "the braking request (automatic brake request) from the automatic driving braking request calculation unit 3A"and "the braking request (braking request from the driver) calculated in the driver braking request calculation unit 6B based on the value acquired from the sensor value acquisition unit 6A." As described above, the braking request arbitration control unit 3C of the main automatic driving ECU 3 arbitrates between the two input braking requests (the automatic brake request and the braking request from the driver) to generate the one braking request (target braking force), for example, as shown in FIG. 5, and outputs the one braking request. The control for the arbitration includes a plurality of types of control such as the select-high control, the addition control, the automatic-brake-prioritized control, and the driver-prioritized control, and the control may be fixed to any one type of control, or may be switched based on a travel scene (any control may be selected from the plurality of types of control based on the travel scene). The braking request arbitration control unit 3C arbitrates between the automatic brake request and the braking request from the driver to generate the final braking request, and outputs the final braking request.) distribute the motion request to at least one actuator system; [store] a plurality of modes of stopped state holding of the vehicle; and select, when the kinematic plans include a request relating to stopped state holding of the vehicle, a mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle from the modes of stopped state holding of the vehicle. ([col. 8, lines 57-67] Control for the arbitration includes a plurality of types of control such as select-high control, addition control, automatic-brake-prioritized control, and driver-prioritized control, and the control may be fixed to any one type of control, or may be switched based on a travel scene (any control may be selected from the plurality of types of control based on the travel scene). The braking request arbitration control unit 3C outputs the final braking request (target braking force) to the main actuator control ECU 6 (main automatic driving ECU determination unit 6E) [col. 14, lines 45-56] Under the normal state, the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration output from the braking request arbitration control unit 3C of the main automatic driving ECU 3 is input to the actuator control unit 6G of the main actuator control ECU 6 through the main communication line 5. As a result, the main actuator 4 is operated by the actuator control unit 6G, to thereby be capable of achieving the arbitration control. That is, the braking request arbitration control unit 3C can apply, with the use of the main actuator 4 through the actuator control unit 6G, the braking force in accordance with the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration.)
Terada does not explicitly disclose: store
Terada does not disclose the following limitations, however Wada, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: store ([0010] a non-transitory computer readable recording medium according to one aspect of the present disclosure contains a program that causes an information processing device to execute a specific information process, the information processing device including a microprocessor and being connected to a network where a plurality of electronic control units perform communication. The specific information process includes receiving a frame containing data over the network [0062] The memory includes, for example, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM) and is capable of storing a program (that is, a computer program) to be executed by the processor. Each ECU, that is, the processor thereof, operates in accordance with the program to achieve various functions such as control of vehicle 20.)
Terada and Wada are from the same field of sensed information processing for vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the information processing apparatus of Terada to enable the storage of the modes taught in Wada.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide storage to the information processing apparatus.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Terada and Wada teaches: The manager according to claim 1,
Terada further discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive identification information of the advanced driver assistance system applications in addition to the kinematic plans, from the advanced driver assistance system applications; and select, when the kinematic plans include the request relating to stopped state holding of the vehicle, the mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle from the modes of stopped state holding of the vehicle in accordance with the identification information of the advanced driver assistance system applications. ([col. 8, lines 57-67] Control for the arbitration includes a plurality of types of control such as select-high control, addition control, automatic-brake-prioritized control, and driver-prioritized control, and the control may be fixed to any one type of control, or may be switched based on a travel scene (any control may be selected from the plurality of types of control based on the travel scene). The braking request arbitration control unit 3C outputs the final braking request (target braking force) to the main actuator control ECU 6 (main automatic driving ECU determination unit 6E) [col. 14, lines 45-56] Under the normal state, the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration output from the braking request arbitration control unit 3C of the main automatic driving ECU 3 is input to the actuator control unit 6G of the main actuator control ECU 6 through the main communication line 5. As a result, the main actuator 4 is operated by the actuator control unit 6G, to thereby be capable of achieving the arbitration control. That is, the braking request arbitration control unit 3C can apply, with the use of the main actuator 4 through the actuator control unit 6G, the braking force in accordance with the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration.)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Terada and Wada teaches: The manager according to claim 2,
Terada further discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: store the identification information of the advanced driver assistance system applications and information related to the mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle such that the identification information and the information related to the mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle are associated with each other; and select, when the kinematic plans include the request relating to stopped state holding of the vehicle, the mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle from the modes of stopped state holding of the vehicle in accordance with the identification information of the advanced driver assistance system applications, based on the stored association between the identification information and the information related to the mode of stopped state holding of the vehicle. ([col. 8, lines 57-67] Control for the arbitration includes a plurality of types of control such as select-high control, addition control, automatic-brake-prioritized control, and driver-prioritized control, and the control may be fixed to any one type of control, or may be switched based on a travel scene (any control may be selected from the plurality of types of control based on the travel scene). The braking request arbitration control unit 3C outputs the final braking request (target braking force) to the main actuator control ECU 6 (main automatic driving ECU determination unit 6E) [col. 14, lines 45-56] Under the normal state, the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration output from the braking request arbitration control unit 3C of the main automatic driving ECU 3 is input to the actuator control unit 6G of the main actuator control ECU 6 through the main communication line 5. As a result, the main actuator 4 is operated by the actuator control unit 6G, to thereby be capable of achieving the arbitration control. That is, the braking request arbitration control unit 3C can apply, with the use of the main actuator 4 through the actuator control unit 6G, the braking force in accordance with the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration.)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Terada and Wada teaches: The manager according to claim 1,
Terada further discloses: wherein the request relating to stopped state holding of the vehicle includes an instruction for permitting or prohibiting actuation of at least one of a brake hold function, an electronic parking brake lock function, and a parking lock function. ([col. 8, lines 57-67] Control for the arbitration includes a plurality of types of control such as select-high control, addition control, automatic-brake-prioritized control, and driver-prioritized control, and the control may be fixed to any one type of control, or may be switched based on a travel scene (any control may be selected from the plurality of types of control based on the travel scene). The braking request arbitration control unit 3C outputs the final braking request (target braking force) to the main actuator control ECU 6 (main automatic driving ECU determination unit 6E) [col. 14, lines 45-56] Under the normal state, the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration output from the braking request arbitration control unit 3C of the main automatic driving ECU 3 is input to the actuator control unit 6G of the main actuator control ECU 6 through the main communication line 5. As a result, the main actuator 4 is operated by the actuator control unit 6G, to thereby be capable of achieving the arbitration control. That is, the braking request arbitration control unit 3C can apply, with the use of the main actuator 4 through the actuator control unit 6G, the braking force in accordance with the braking request (final braking request) after the arbitration.)
Regarding claim 5: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 1 and 5, however additionally directed to “A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by a computer”, which is further taught by Wada: “A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by a computer” ([0010] a non-transitory computer readable recording medium according to one aspect of the present disclosure contains a program that causes an information processing device to execute a specific information process, the information processing device including a microprocessor and being connected to a network where a plurality of electronic control units perform communication. The specific information process includes receiving a frame containing data over the network [0062] The memory includes, for example, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM) and is capable of storing a program (that is, a computer program) to be executed by the processor. Each ECU, that is, the processor thereof, operates in accordance with the program to achieve various functions such as control of vehicle 20.)
As previously stated, Terada and Wada are from the same field of sensed information processing for vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the information processing apparatus of Terada to enable the storage of the modes taught in Wada.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide storage to the information processing apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658