DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application with case number 18/938,374 filed on 11/06/2024, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. 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. EP23213057.5, filed on 11/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 11/20/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
6. Examiner notes that Applicants have used the phrase “and/or” in claim(s) 9, and 11-13. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that use of the phrase “and/or” within a claim is not indefinite. According to the PTAB, “and/or” is not wrong, but it’s not preferred verbiage (see Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811).
7. Nevertheless, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification (see MPEP § 2111; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Based upon this guidance from the MPEP and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Examiner interprets the phrase “and/or” under its broadest reasonable interpretation of “or” for purposes of examination of the instant Application.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “an upcoming road segment” in lines 1-2 should read “the upcoming road segment.”
9. Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “an upcoming road segment” in lines 1-2 should read “the upcoming road segment.”
10. Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “an upcoming road segment” in lines 1-2 should read “the upcoming road segment.”
11. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “an upcoming road segment” in lines 1-2 should read “the upcoming road segment.”
12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
14. Claim 5, 8, 11-12 and 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
15. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the driver” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a driver.”
16. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the total number of points” in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a total number of points.”
17. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the maximum and/or minimum speed” in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a maximum and/or minimum speed.”
18. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the maximum and/or minimum speed” in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a maximum and/or minimum speed.” Claim 12, also recites the limitation of “the maximum speed limit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a maximum speed limit.”
19. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the driver” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a driver.”
20. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the road segment” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a road segment.”
21. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the driver” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a driver.” Claim 16, also recites the limitation of “the total number of points” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a total number of point.” Claim 16 also recites the limitation “the road segment” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “a road segment.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11, 15, and 17-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Suzuki discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to (See at least Fig. 1, and [0021]: the vehicle control apparatus 10 is a computer apparatus [i.e., computer system] that operates by a processor [i.e., processing circuitry] executing a program stored in a memory):
obtain a driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for a host vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-2, step S12, and [0034]: the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the first path includes the second path from the first point to the multi-point turning point at which the multi-point turning [i.e., a driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment] of the vehicle is performed, and the third path from the multi-point turning point to the target point):
points of a multipoint turn of at least one vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0034]: the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the first path includes the second path from the first point to the multi-point turning point [i.e., points of a multipoint turn] at which the multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed, and the third path from the multi-point turning point to the target point); and
a width of a variability band of a plurality of turning trajectories of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment; and
assist the host vehicle in traversing the upcoming road segment (See at least Fig. 2, Step S13, and [0034]: in a case where it is determined that the vehicle is considered to have reached the multi-point turning point at the second point, the control unit 12 controls [i.e., assist the host vehicle] the driving unit such that the vehicle travels to the relay point on the third path).
Suzuki is silent on of the vehicle type.
However, Fairfield teaches vehicle 100 is a tractor-trailer truck. The truck includes a single, double or triple trailer, or is another medium or heavy duty truck such as in commercial weight classes 4 through 8. Historical models of either traversal time between points of interest or other nodes, or maneuver difficulty for various vehicle types [i.e., the vehicle type] or configurations have associated costs (See at least Fig. 1, and [0029 & 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, by incorporating the teachings of Fairfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the vehicle type is considered for obtaining maneuver difficulty.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Fairfield, to determine an ideal trajectory (and cost) for the truck to make a given turn or other driving operation (See at least [0003]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to handle the driving operation successfully without causing traffic and blocking an intersection.
In regard to claim 2
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the points of a multipoint turn indicates forward and reverse operations by the host vehicle in traversing the upcoming road segment (See at least [0028]: in a case where the first path includes a multi-point turning point, the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the vehicle is considered to have reached the multi-point turning point. The multi-point turning point is a point where the traveling direction of the vehicle is changed from a forward direction [i.e., forward operation] to a backward direction [i.e., reverse operation], or a point where the traveling direction of the vehicle is changed from the backward direction to the forward direction. The multi-point turning point is provided in a case where the vehicle cannot move so as to be in the target orientation at the target point only with forward movement of the vehicle involving a steering wheel rotation operation or backward movement of the vehicle involving a steering wheel rotation operation).
In regard to claim 4
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein assisting the host vehicle in traversing the upcoming road segment further comprises:
obtain a preferred trajectory for the host vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0033]: the path generation unit 11 generates the first path [i.e., preferred trajectory] for the vehicle to move from the first point where the vehicle is present to the target point so as to be in the target orientation at the target point (S11)); and
assist the host vehicle by guiding the host vehicle along the preferred trajectory (See at least [0033]: the control unit 12 controls the driving unit of the vehicle such that the vehicle moves along the first path).
In regard to claim 5
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 4, wherein assisting the host vehicle by guiding the host vehicle along the preferred trajectory further comprises at least one of:
guide host vehicle by visualizing the preferred trajectory to the driver;
guide the host vehicle by applying steering assist; or
guide the host vehicle by applying at least partly autonomous driving (See at least [0027]: the control unit 12 controls a driving unit such that the vehicle moves along the first path generated by the path generation unit 11. The driving unit is a system for controlling driving wheels, and controls a rotational speed of the driving wheels, an angle of the driving wheels determined by a steering operation, and the like. The control unit 12 controls the movement of the vehicle by transmitting information regarding the movement of the vehicle, such as a speed, a movement direction, a turning direction, or a turning radius of the vehicle, to the driving unit [i.e., partly autonomous driving]).
In regard to claim 6
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain the preferred trajectory from a plurality of reference trajectories, wherein each reference trajectory corresponds to a trajectory of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment.
Further, Fairfield teaches at block 1106, the one or more processors determine, based on the received sensor data and the plurality of possible paths [i.e., a plurality of reference trajectories], a kinematic feasibility of each possible path according to a kinematic model of the vehicle. At block 1108, the one or more processors select a given one of the possible paths [i.e., obtain the preferred trajectory] based on the kinematic feasibility and a hierarchy of stored rules, the hierarchy of stored rules being associated with one or more of lane indicators, physical road components or restrictions of the vehicle [i.e., the vehicle type] (See at least Fig. 11, and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by further incorporating the teachings of Fairfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that a preferred trajectory is selected from a plurality of possible paths.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Fairfield in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 9
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for the host vehicle further comprises:
obtaining a steering angle spread of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment from the points of the multipoint turn and/or from the width of the variability band (See at least [0022 & 0044]: the vehicle determines a traveling direction according to a turning radius [i.e., width of the variability band] determined based on a steering angle [i.e., steering angle spread] with respect to a front direction of the vehicle. The determination unit 23 determines that the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle in a case where a steering wheel cannot be rotated to an angle toward the multi-point turning point before the vehicle reaches the multi-point turning point. Examiner notes, determining that the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle, necessarily includes obtaining a steering angle spread of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment from the points of the multipoint turn); and
obtaining the driving difficulty based on the steering angle spread (See at least [0044]: the determination unit 23 determines that the multi-point turning point is not reachable by the vehicle in a case where a steering wheel cannot be rotated to an angle toward the multi-point turning point before the vehicle reaches the multi-point turning point. Examiner notes, determining that a steering wheel cannot be rotated to an angle toward the multi-point turning point is obtaining driving difficulty based on the steering angle spread).
In regard to claim 11
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for the host vehicle further comprises:
obtaining the maximum and/or minimum speed of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment (See at least [0047]: a value obtained by multiplying a time for moving the steering wheel from a right maximum angle of the steering wheel in a case where turning to the right to a left maximum angle of the steering wheel in a case where turning to the left by a minimum speed of the vehicle. The time for moving the steering wheel from the right maximum angle of the steering in a case where turning to the right to the left maximum angle of the steering wheel in a case where turning to the left and the minimum speed of the vehicle is determined [i.e., obtaining the maximum and/or minimum speed] in advance as performance values of the vehicle. Alternatively, the minimum speed of the vehicle is a predetermined minimum speed in an area where the vehicle travels); and
obtaining the driving difficulty based on the maximum and/or minimum speed (See at least [0066]: the determination unit calculates the time t1 by using a minimum speed defined as performance of the vehicle or a predetermined movement speed and a distance from the current point to the multi-point turning point [i.e., driving difficulty]).
In regard to claim 15
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to
store traversing data of the host vehicle traversing the road segment.
Further, Fairfield teaches the one or more processors generate a final trajectory for the vehicle based on the given path. At block 1216 the final trajectory [i.e., traversing data of the host vehicle] is stored in memory (See at least Fig. 12, and [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Fairfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems–, such that the final trajectory for the vehicle is stored in memory.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Fairfield, to determine an ideal trajectory (and cost) for the truck to make a given turn or other driving operation (See at least [0003]) and share the ideal trajectory with other vehicles which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the other vehicles of the same type to be aware of the possible difficulty and use the shared trajectory when they face the same situation.
In regard to claim 17
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (See at least Fig. 1, and [0021]: the vehicle control apparatus 10 is mounted on a vehicle and control movement of the vehicle).
In regard to claim 18
, Suzuki teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising (See at least [0010]: a vehicle control apparatus, a vehicle control method, and a non-transitory computer- readable medium that prevents repetition of movement on the same path in a case where a path including multi-point turning is planned):
obtaining, by a processing circuitry of a computer system, a driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for a host vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-2, step S12, and [0034]: the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the first path includes the second path from the first point to the multi-point turning point at which the multi-point turning [i.e., a driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment] of the vehicle is performed, and the third path from the multi-point turning point to the target point):
points of a multipoint turn of at least one vehicle (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0034]: the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the first path includes the second path from the first point to the multi-point turning point [i.e., points of a multipoint turn] at which the multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed, and the third path from the multi-point turning point to the target point); and
a width of a variability band of a plurality of turning trajectories of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment; and
assisting the host vehicle in traversing the upcoming road segment (See at least Fig. 2, Step S13, and [0034]: in a case where it is determined that the vehicle is considered to have reached the multi-point turning point at the second point, the control unit 12 controls the driving unit such that the vehicle travels to the relay point on the third path).
Suzuki is silent on of a vehicle type.
However, Fairfield teaches vehicle 100 is a tractor-trailer truck [i.e., the vehicle type]. The truck includes a single, double or triple trailer, or is another medium or heavy duty truck such as in commercial weight classes 4 through 8. Historical models of either traversal time between points of interest or other nodes, or maneuver difficulty for various vehicle types or configurations have associated costs (See at least Fig. 1, and [0029 & 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, by incorporating the teachings of Fairfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the vehicle type is considered for obtaining maneuver difficulty..
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Fairfield, to determine an ideal trajectory (and cost) for the truck to make a given turn or other driving operation (See at least [0003]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the truck to handle the driving operation successfully without causing traffic and blocking an intersection by getting stuck.
In regard to claim 19
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 18 (See at least Fig. 10, and [0074-0075]: the processors [i.e., processing circuitry] included in the vehicle control apparatus 10 executes one or a plurality of programs including a command group for causing a computer to perform the algorithm. The program [i.e., computer program product] includes a group of instructions (or software codes) [i.e., program code] for causing a computer to execute one or more functions where the program is read by the computer. The program is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium or a tangible storage medium).
In regard to claim 20
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 18 (See at least Fig. 10, and [0074-0075]: the processors [i.e., processing circuitry] included in the vehicle control apparatus 10 executes one or a plurality of programs including a command group for causing a computer to perform the algorithm. The program includes a group of instructions (or software codes) for causing a computer to execute one or more functions where the program is read by the computer. The program is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium or a tangible storage medium).
24. Claim(s) 3
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Sassa et al. (US-20180354552-A1).
In regard to claim 3
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on wherein the width of the variability band indicates driving precision by the host vehicle in traversing the upcoming road segment.
However, Sassa teaches the processing unit calculates the correction value based on the running turning radius [i.e., variability band] estimated with higher accuracy, it is possible to allow the vehicle to drive along the set route with higher accuracy during automatic driving [i.e., driving precision] (See at least [0159]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Sassa, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the route is set with higher accuracy based on the turning radius of the vehicle.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Sassa, to calculate the running turning radius with high accuracy (See at least [0165]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to be operated accurately and to avoid possible damage to the vehicle.
25. Claim(s) 7
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Herman et al. (US-20230230387-A1).
In regard to claim 7
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain the variability band from the plurality of reference trajectories (See at least [0022 & 0044]: the vehicle determines a traveling direction according to a turning radius [i.e., variability band] determined based on a steering angle with respect to a front direction of the vehicle. Examiner notes, determining a traveling direction according to a turning radius, necessarily include the case in which the turning radius is obtained); and
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on obtain the preferred trajectory based on the variability band.
However, Herman teaches path derivation routine 88 is programmed to derive vehicle path 20 to align a known location of the vehicle hitch ball 22 with the estimated position 24 of coupler 16 that takes into account the determined minimum turning radius ρ.sub.min to allow path 20 to use the minimum amount of space and maneuvers (See at least [0072]). Examiner notes, deriving vehicle path by taking into account the determined minimum turning radius, is obtaining the preferred trajectory based on the variability band.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Herman, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the preferred trajectory is obtained by determining and taking into account the minimum turning radius.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Herman, to provide improved assisted vehicle operation (See at least [0001]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the driver to control the vehicle safely and easily.
26. Claim(s) 8
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Danzl et al. (US-20160200317-A1).
In regard to claim 8
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain the points of a multipoint turn from the plurality of reference trajectories (See at least [0041]: the determination unit 23 sets the relay points [i.e., obtain the points of a multipoint turn] in the path generated by the path generation unit 22, and determines whether or not the multi-point turning point is included by determining whether or not an angle formed by paths between the relay points is larger than 90 degrees); and
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on obtain the preferred trajectory based on the total number of points of the multipoint turn for each reference trajectory.
However, Danzl teaches the trajectories lying between trajectories 20, 22, 23 are determined in many different ways, however, wherein usually only those trajectories are determined that have a maximum predefined number of turning points. Trajectories with a multitude of turning points are typically only those having a large number of turning points that are drivable at substantially lower speeds (See at least Fig. 2, and [0100]). Examiner notes, determining a trajectory that has a maximum predefined number of turning points, is obtaining a trajectory based on the total number of points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Danzl, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the preferred trajectory is determined based on the total number of points.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Danzl, to provide a motor vehicle with improved performance in critical driving situations (See at least [0004]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to stay safe by handling the critical situations properly.
27. Claim(s) 10
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Vavrus et al. (DE-112008000625-T5).
In regard to claim 10
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein obtaining the driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for the host vehicle further comprises:
obtaining a total number of braking operations of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment (See at least Figs. 1-2, and [0034]: the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the first path includes the second path from the first point to the multi-point turning point at which the multi-point turning of the vehicle is performed, and the third path from the multi-point turning point to the target point. Examiner notes, in multipoint turning, the number of turning point, where the vehicle changes its direction from forward to reverse or vice versa, is the same as the total number of braking operations for the multipoint turn); and
obtaining the driving difficulty (See at least [0066]: the determination unit calculates the time t1 by using a minimum speed defined as performance of the vehicle or a predetermined movement speed and a distance from the current point to the multi-point turning point [i.e., driving difficulty]).
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on based on the total number of braking operations.
However, Vavrus teaches the step of determining a suggestion route further based on the determination on the number of estimated stops in the route and further based on the estimated number of times the vehicle will brake for turning [i.e., based on the total number of braking operations], and further based on the estimated number how often the vehicle is due to a curve in a part of the Route braking is included (See at least page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Vavrus, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the estimated number of times the vehicle will brake for turning is taken into consideration for determining a path that includes multipoint turning.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Vavrus, to avoid problems in the route, such as dangerous crossings (See at least page 2) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized prevents the vehicle form getting stuck in a dangerous crossing.
28. Claim(s) 12
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Liu et al. (US-20190129437-A1).
In regard to claim 12
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
While Suzuki discloses the time for moving the steering wheel from the right maximum angle of the steering in a case where turning to the right to the left maximum angle of the steering wheel in a case where turning to the left and the minimum speed of the vehicle is determined [i.e., obtaining the maximum and/or minimum speed] in advance as performance values of the vehicle. Alternatively, the minimum speed of the vehicle is a predetermined minimum speed in an area where the vehicle travels (See at least [0047]), Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on wherein obtaining the driving difficulty of an upcoming road segment for the host vehicle further comprises:
obtaining a relationship between the maximum and/or minimum speed of at least one vehicle of the vehicle type traversing the upcoming road segment and the maximum speed limit for the upcoming road segment; and
obtaining the driving difficulty based on the relationship.
However, Liu teaches running speed limit [i.e., the maximum speed limit for the upcoming road segment] and a turning angle of the vehicle are acquired by comparing the preview track of the vehicle with the reference running track, and the vehicle is controlled to run at the turning angle and a running speed [i.e., speed of at least one vehicle] less than or equal to the running speed limit, so that the deviation between the track of the vehicle in the actual running process and the reference running track is as small as possible, and the vehicle passes through the intersection [i.e., obtaining the driving difficulty] without lane line under the guidance of the reference running track, thereby ensuring driving safety and reducing traffic accidents (See at least [0125]). Examiner notes, the running speed of the vehicle being less than the running speed limit, is obtaining a relationship between the vehicle running speed and the speed limit of the segment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the minimum speed of the vehicle and the speed limit of the segment are obtained, and while the vehicle is turning, the minimum speed of the vehicle is kept under the running speed limit of the segment.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Liu, to ensure driving safety and reducing traffic accidents (See at least [0040]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the roads stay safe and accident free.
29. Claim(s) 13
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Ziebart et al. (US-20230227061-A1).
In regard to claim 13
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
indicate the upcoming road segment on a map of the host vehicle and/or indicate the driving difficulty of the upcoming road segment on a map of the host vehicle.
However, Ziebart teaches the map data provides information regarding: the identity and location of different roadways, road segments [i.e., indicate the upcoming road segment], buildings, or other items or objects (See at least [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Ziebart, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the road segments are provided on a map.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Ziebart, to improve the performance of an autonomous vehicle (AV) by determining a plan for the AV that optimizes an initial cost function of a control algorithm of the AV (See at least [0006]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle to generate the most optimal trajectory for the vehicle.
30. Claim(s) 14
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US-20250360916-A1) in view of Fairfield et al. (US-20210197852-A1) and further in view of Kondo et al. (US-20190077413-A1).
In regard to claim 14
, Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, teaches the computer system of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, is silent on wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a skill level of the driver of the host vehicle, and to obtain the driving difficulty based on the driver’s skill level.
However, Kondo teaches when the driving skill-level of the driver [i.e., a skill level of the driver] is lower than the difficulty level [i.e., driving difficulty] of the driving skill-level requirement 117, it is determined that the driving skill-level of the driver does not satisfy the requirement in the driving skill element, the process proceeds to step S603. On the other hand, when the driving skill-level of the driver is equal to or higher than the difficulty level of the driving skill-level requirement 117, it is determined that the driving skill-level of the driver meets the requirement in the driving skill element, the process returns to step S601 (See at least Fig. 6, and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the invention of Suzuki, as modified by Fairfield, by incorporating the teachings of Kondo, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems, such that the driving skill-level of the driver is obtained and the difficulty level of the driving operation is determined based on the driving skill-level of the driver.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Kondo, to provide driving assistance information in consideration of a driving skill-level for drivers who are unfamiliar with driving (See at least [0002]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows the vehicle and the driver to stay safe.
Claim Objections
31. In regard to the 103 rejection(s) noted above, claim(s) 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 USC §112(b), set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh (US-20210004011-A1) teaches a device and a method for determining a U-turn strategy of an autonomous driving vehicle.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
34. 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.
35. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
36. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661