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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts as follows:
Applicant submits that the claim limitation, "obtaining data comprising information about a UUODD exit area "along the route to be travelled by the vehicle" indicates a predictive, look-ahead determination (i.e., precautionary planning) of problem areas on the upcoming route.
On the contrary, Sato deals with risk mitigation and stopping locations near intersections. In particular, Sato continuously searches for target stopping location candidates in preparation for RMF activation and establishes "no-stop areas" near intersections. However, Sato does not proactively obtain data about the "vicinity of the intersection" (the Examiner's mapped UUODD exit area) along the route. Instead, Sato reactively evaluates whether the vehicle's current location is within the vicinity of an intersection only at the exact moment a communication fault occurs and the RMF is activated. Evaluating a current emergency state is fundamentally different from obtaining data about a UUODD exit area along a future route to be travelled.
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites "controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state. " The claim's structure separates the "control" from the execution of the Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM). The UUODD exit area is defined conceptually by what would happen "in response to the MRM being executed". Thus, the claimed control is performed as part of the recited precautionary planning and is based on an evaluation of the likelihood that a future execution of the MRM would result in the vehicle entering a high-risk state.
Examiner respectfully asserts that the claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, does not appear to delineate or otherwise define the relevant terms in the manner set forth in Arguments, above. The structure of the claim defines the UUODD exit area as “wherein the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area” with the control based on the UUODD exit area being recited as “controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state.” Under such a configuration, Sato defining a “vicinity of an intersection,” which is interpreted by the Examiner as paralleling the UUODD exit area appears to comport with that of the claim. The “vicinity of the intersection” of Sato has a higher risk of the vehicle “disturbing the traffic flow or contact or collision with other traffic participants at the intersection…” “if the RMF is activated to decelerate and stop the vehicle” [Sato, Paragraph 0044], and therefore meets the requirement of “wherein the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area” as defined by the claim. Further, as the setting of the target stopping location, and the subsequent control of the vehicle to go to said location, takes place based on if the vehicle is within the vicinity of an intersection, Sato further meets the criterion of “controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state” as recited by the present claimed invention.
Further, with respect to the advance obtaining of information regarding intersections [the mapped UUODD exit area], Examiner respectfully asserts that Sato discloses in at least Paragraph 0091 wherein a plurality of stopping locations are set continuously “in preparation for RMF activation… and not only in the vicinity of an intersection” based on information retrieved from a map information database. Thus, the limitation "obtaining data comprising information about a UUODD exit area "along the route to be travelled by the vehicle" appears to be anticipated by Sato under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as due to the stopping locations being continuously set based on map data, data regarding the "vicinity of the intersection" along the route is obtained.
In contrast, Sato's "control" is the execution of the MRM. When a communication fault occurs, Sato activates RMF and selects a target stopping location for execution of the emergency maneuver, thereby guiding the vehicle to a safe place. Sato does not control the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area to prevent the risk should the MRM be executed. Sato simply alters the RMF path while the RMF is actively executing an emergency stop. In other words, Sato's focus is entirely on the execution of the RMF (Sato's equivalent of an MRM) after an actual failure has occurred. Accordingly, Sato discloses control associated with execution of an emergency maneuver in response to an actual fault condition, rather than precautionary planning based on a UUODD exit area.
Moreover, Sato's system operates by searching for target stopping location candidates in the background. However, the "control" the Examiner relies upon, selecting a target stopping location that avoids cutting across oncoming lanes, only happens "in a case in which the RMF is activated." Thus, Sato's RMF is activated in response to a communication fault. Therefore, Sato's control is performed in response to an occurrence of an actual emergency. Furthermore, Sato's goal in selecting the stopping location is simply to safely park the vehicle by reducing encounter points with other traffic participants and reducing the influence on traffic flow during the emergency stop.
Accordingly, Sato does not disclose (i) obtaining data comprising information about a UUODD exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle, or (ii) controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high- risk state. Because Sato fails to disclose each and every limitation of Claim 1 arranged as claimed, Sato does not anticipate Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, delineates the system as claimed from that asserted by arguments, above. The “control” in the context of the claim encompasses “controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state.” As noted by the Applicant in arguments above, and as set forth in the rejection below, Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 – 0044 & 0102 – 0103 wherein in the event that the RMF is activated in the vicinity of an intersection, the vehicle is controlled to select a target stopping location that the vehicle can reach without cutting across the oncoming lane at the intersection, and the vehicle is controlled to execute the RMF based on said target stopping location. Examiner respectfully asserts that even though the system may execute control in response to the RMF being activated due to an emergency, the system still falls within the bound of the system defined by the claim(s), given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
Further, the “precautionary” nature of the invention, while recited in the preamble, appears to be equally anticipated by Sato. Sato discloses in at least Paragraph 0091 wherein a plurality of stopping locations are set continuously “in preparation for RMF activation… and not only in the vicinity of an intersection.” Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that the planning of the system is precautionary in nature, and not limited to only following the occurrence of a failure.
In sharp contrast, the claimed subject matter controls the vehicle as a precautionary function during normal operation, based on the evaluation of a hypothetical MRM execution. Claim 1 requires defining a UUODD exit area based on the likelihood that the vehicle will enter a high-risk state "in response to the MRM being executed" while in that area. The claim then requires controlling the vehicle based on that UUODD exit area to reduce that likelihood. This means the claimed invention adjusts the vehicle's operation (e.g., by inhibiting the ADS, altering a trajectory, changing speeds) to prevent the vehicle from being in a situation where a hypothetical MRM execution would cause a high-risk state. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the Claim 1 is patentable over Sato for at least these reasons and allowance of Claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly to as set forth above, the limitation “controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state” as recited by the present claimed invention appears, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to be anticipated by Sato. As set forth in the rejection below, Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 – 0044 & 0102 – 0103 wherein in the event that the RMF is activated in the vicinity of an intersection, the vehicle is controlled to select a target stopping location that the vehicle can reach without cutting across the oncoming lane at the intersection, and the vehicle is controlled to execute the RMF based on said target stopping location. In other words, Sato selects and controls the vehicle to a target stopping location based on if the vehicle is within a vicinity of an intersection or not [i.e. controlling the vehicle based on a UUODD exit area] the location being set to “an area at which risks such as contact or collision between the vehicle 1 and other traffic participants can be reduced” [Sato, Paragraph 0043, i.e. in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state]. Setting the target stopping location based on the vicinity of the vehicle to an intersection, and controlling the vehicle based on such in order to reduce the risk of collision or contact is, asserted by the Examiner, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “obtaining data comprising information about an Undesired Unexpected ODD (UUODD) exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle based on a current trajectory of the vehicle and a nominal Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) configuration of the vehicle, wherein the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area; and controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state.” Thus, Applicant Arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, Claim 11 includes similar recitations as discussed above regarding Claim 1, and is rejected using the same bases as Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 11 is patentable for at least the same reasons discussed above regarding Claim 1, the allowance of Claim 11 is respectfully requested.
For at least the reasons set forth above, as well as those set forth below with respect to specific limitations, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103, as applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, 11, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (EP 4250266 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sato discloses: A computer-implemented method for precautionary planning for a vehicle having an Automated Driving System (ADS) function having an Operational Design Domain (ODD) the method comprising: (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0010 & 0023 a method for driving a vehicle by an automated driving system, including executing automated driving operations in an operational design domain [i.e. a method for a vehicle having an Automated Driving System (ADS) function having an Operational Design Domain (ODD)]. At least Paragraph 0016 of Sato discloses wherein the method may be implemented by a computer, including a ROM storing programs, and a CPU for performing computational processing [i.e. the method is computer-implemented])
obtaining data comprising information about a high-risk state for the vehicle along a route to be travelled by the vehicle, wherein the high-risk state is defined based on a geographical area along the route to be travelled and a set of potential states of the vehicle within the geographical area; (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0042, & 0044 wherein an intersection may be defined as a risk area, in which contact or collision with other traffic participants [i.e. high-risk state for the vehicle] may occur if the vehicle is brought to a stop in the no-stopping area [i.e. the high-risk state is defined based on a geographical area along the route to be travelled and a set of potential states of the vehicle within the geographical area]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 & Figure 4(a) of Sato, below, describe and depict such an intersection, wherein the risk area is indicated as Element RA. At least Paragraphs 0011, 0017, & 0052 of Sato further disclose wherein map information, acquired from a map information database, may be used to acquire road data, as well as search for target stopping locations for a risk mitigation function of the vehicle [i.e. obtaining data comprising information about a high-risk state for the vehicle along a route to be travelled by the vehicle])
PNG
media_image1.png
314
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining data comprising information about an Undesired Unexpected ODD (UUODD) exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle based on a current trajectory of the vehicle and a nominal Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) configuration of the vehicle, wherein the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area; and (Sato discloses in at least Paragraph 0044 wherein a vicinity of an area near an intersection may be defined, such that the vicinity [i.e. Undesired Unexpected ODD (UUODD) exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle] is defined as a predetermined area in front of the intersection which, if the RMF [risk mitigation function, mapping to the MRM of the present claimed invention] is activated to decelerate the vehicle at a predetermined rate, the vehicle would come to a stop inside the no-stop area [i.e. the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area based on a current trajectory of the vehicle and a nominal Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) configuration of the vehicle])
controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state. (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 – 0044 & 0102 – 0103 wherein in the event that the RMF is activated in the vicinity of an intersection [i.e. based on the UUODD exit area], the vehicle is controlled to select a target stopping location that the vehicle can reach without cutting across the oncoming lane at the intersection, and the vehicle is controlled to execute the RMF based on said target stopping location [i.e. controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state])
Regarding Claim 7:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the geographical area is a pre-defined geographical area on a digital map accessible by the ADS function.
Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0011, 0017, & 0052 wherein map information, acquired from a map information database, may be used to acquire road data including the positions of roads and lanes, as well as search for target stopping locations for a risk mitigation function of the vehicle [i.e. wherein the geographical area is a pre-defined geographical area on a digital map accessible by the ADS function].
Regarding Claim 10:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Sato discloses in at least Paragraph 0016 wherein a vehicle control part may be provided to implement the disclosed functions, including a ROM storing programs, and a CPU to perform computational processing [i.e. non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a computing device].
Regarding Claim 11:
Sato discloses: A system for precautionary planning for a vehicle having an Automated Driving System (ADS) function having an Operational Design Domain (ODD) the system comprising control circuitry configured to: (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0010 & 0023 driving a vehicle by an automated driving system, including executing automated driving operations in an operational design domain [i.e. a system for precautionary planning for a vehicle having an Automated Driving System (ADS) function having an Operational Design Domain (ODD)]. At least Paragraph 0016 of Sato discloses wherein the system may be implemented by a computer, including a ROM storing programs, and a CPU for performing computational processing [i.e. the system comprising control circuitry])
obtain data comprising information about a high-risk state for the vehicle along a route to be travelled by the vehicle, wherein the high-risk state is defined based on a geographical area along the route to be travelled and a set of potential states of the vehicle within the geographical area; (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0039, 0042, & 0044 wherein an intersection may be defined as a risk area, in which contact or collision with other traffic participants [i.e. high-risk state for the vehicle] may occur if the vehicle is brought to a stop in the no-stopping area [i.e. the high-risk state is defined based on a geographical area along the route to be travelled and a set of potential states of the vehicle within the geographical area]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 & Figure 4(a) of Sato, above, describe and depict such an intersection, wherein the risk area is indicated as Element RA. At least Paragraphs 0011, 0017, & 0052 of Sato further disclose wherein map information, acquired from a map information database, may be used to acquire road data, as well as search for target stopping locations for a risk mitigation function of the vehicle [i.e. obtaining data comprising information about a high-risk state for the vehicle along a route to be travelled by the vehicle])
obtain data comprising information about an Undesired Unexpected ODD (UUODD) exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle based on a current trajectory of the vehicle and a nominal Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) configuration of the vehicle, wherein the unplanned ODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area; and (Sato discloses in at least Paragraph 0044 wherein a vicinity of an area near an intersection may be defined, such that the vicinity [i.e. Undesired Unexpected ODD (UUODD) exit area along the route to be travelled by the vehicle] is defined as a predetermined area in front of the intersection which, if the RMF [risk mitigation function, mapping to the MRM of the present claimed invention] is activated to decelerate the vehicle at a predetermined rate, the vehicle would come to a stop inside the no-stop area [i.e. the UUODD exit area is defined based on a likelihood that the vehicle will enter the high-risk state in response to the MRM being executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area])
control the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state. (Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043 – 0044 & 0102 – 0103 wherein in the event that the RMF is activated in the vicinity of an intersection [i.e. based on the UUODD exit area], the vehicle is controlled to select a target stopping location that the vehicle can reach without cutting across the oncoming lane at the intersection, and the vehicle is controlled to execute the RMF based on said target stopping location [i.e. controlling the vehicle based on the UUODD exit area in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state])
Regarding Claim 14:
A vehicle comprising: a system according to claim 11.
Sato discloses in at least Paragraphs 0010 & 0023 wherein an automated driving system may be used to control a vehicle according to the manner of the disclosure [i.e. a vehicle comprising a system].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 9, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (EP 4250266 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Lathrop (US 2017/0259832 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises: in response to the ADS function being currently inactive, inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area/vicinity of the intersection.
However Lathrop teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0022 wherein a semi-autonomous vehicle may prevent activation of an autonomous driving mode if it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a geofence within a predetermined amount of time [i.e. within a UUODD exit area , the geofence defining a location in which autonomous driving is discouraged or prohibited [i.e. in response to the ADS function being currently inactive, inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the prevention of activation of autonomous driving based on approaching an area where autonomous driving is discouraged as taught by Lathrop.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lathrop in at least Paragraphs 0021, 0022, & 0064, the autonomous operation of the vehicle may be prevented where not appropriate for use, improving the safety of the vehicle operation in risky areas.
Regarding Claim 8:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling of the vehicle is performed prior to the vehicle entering the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the controlling of the vehicle is performed prior to the vehicle entering the UUODD exit area.
However Lathrop teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022, 0044, & 0057, as well as in at least Claims 1 & 2 wherein a plurality of predetermined periods of time may be set as a vehicle approaches a geofenced area where autonomous driving is discouraged or prohibited, such that a warning is provided to a driver to assume driving of a vehicle in a first period of time, with control taking place to perform a minimum risk maneuver in a second period of time subsequent to the first, prior to the entry into the geofenced area [i.e. wherein the controlling of the vehicle is performed prior to the vehicle entering the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the control of a vehicle prior to entering the geofenced area in multiple predetermined time intervals as taught by Lathrop.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lathrop in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0057, the vehicle may be controlled in a manner to ensure that the level of automated control is appropriate when passing through a risk area, improving the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the controlling of the vehicle is performed during a defined time-window immediately preceding a subsequent time window when the vehicle is expected to traverse the UUODD exit area.
Lathrop teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022, 0044, & 0057, as well as in at least Claims 1 & 2 wherein a plurality of predetermined periods of time may be set as a vehicle approaches a geofenced area where autonomous driving is discouraged or prohibited, such that a warning is provided to a driver to assume driving of a vehicle in a first period of time [i.e. during a defined time-window immediately preceding a subsequent time window when the vehicle is expected to traverse the UUODD exit area], with control taking place to perform a minimum risk maneuver in a second period of time subsequent to the first, prior to the entry into the geofenced area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the control of a vehicle prior to entering the geofenced area in a first time window prior to a second time window, prior to entry into a geofenced area as taught by Lathrop.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lathrop in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0057, the vehicle may be controlled in a manner to ensure that the level of automated control is appropriate when passing through a risk area, improving the safety of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 12:
The system according to claim 11, wherein control circuitry is configured to control the vehicle by: in response to the ADS function being currently inactive, inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area/vicinity of the intersection.
However Lathrop teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0022 wherein a semi-autonomous vehicle may prevent activation of an autonomous driving mode if it is determined that the vehicle is approaching a geofence within a predetermined amount of time [i.e. within a UUODD exit area , the geofence defining a location in which autonomous driving is discouraged or prohibited [i.e. in response to the ADS function being currently inactive, inhibiting activation of the ADS function within the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the prevention of activation of autonomous driving based on approaching an area where autonomous driving is discouraged as taught by Lathrop.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lathrop in at least Paragraphs 0021, 0022, & 0064, the autonomous operation of the vehicle may be prevented where not appropriate for use, improving the safety of the vehicle operation in risky areas.
Claim(s) 3 - 5 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (EP 4250266 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, and further in view of Packer (US 2020/0086855 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises: in response to the ADS function being currently active, updating the trajectory of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the trajectory of a vehicle is updated in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
However Packer teaches in at least Paragraph 0078 wherein a point in a collision risk zone may include areas proximate to an intersection, within a specified threshold distance [i.e. a UUODD exit area as defined above]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 of Packer further teach wherein a potential collision zone is determined, with offset distances in accordance with safe distances from surrounding agents. Based on the determination that a collision in the collision zone is possible, the planned path associated with the vehicle may be changed, including the change of vehicle lane or the slowing of the vehicle, as well as determining a safe stop position, such that in an example, changing the lane associated with the vehicle path preemptively may result in a reduced yield time as taught in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0096 of Packer [i.e. updating the trajectory of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle trajectory in anticipation of a yield maneuver when in a potential collision zone as taught by Packer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Packer in at least Paragraph 0022, the yield time may be reduced in the event that such a maneuver must be executed by preemptively controlling the vehicle to a safer state.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method according to claim 3, wherein updating a trajectory of the vehicle comprises: controlling a lateral motion of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the lateral motion of a vehicle is updated in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
However Packer teaches in at least Paragraph 0078 wherein a point in a collision risk zone may include areas proximate to an intersection, within a specified threshold distance [i.e. a UUODD exit area as defined above]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 of Packer further teach wherein a potential collision zone is determined, with offset distances in accordance with safe distances from surrounding agents. Based on the determination that a collision in the collision zone is possible, the planned path associated with the vehicle may be changed, including the change of vehicle lane, as well as determining a safe stop position, such that in an example, changing the lane associated with the vehicle path preemptively may result in a reduced yield time as taught in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0096 of Packer [i.e. updating a trajectory of the vehicle comprises controlling a lateral motion of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle trajectory by changing lanes in anticipation of a yield maneuver when in a potential collision zone as taught by Packer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Packer in at least Paragraph 0022, the yield time may be reduced in the event that such a maneuver must be executed by preemptively controlling the vehicle to a safer state.
Regarding Claim 5:
The method according to claim 3, wherein updating a trajectory of the vehicle comprises: controlling a speed of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the speed of a vehicle is controlled in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
However Packer teaches in at least Paragraph 0078 wherein a point in a collision risk zone may include areas proximate to an intersection, within a specified threshold distance [i.e. a UUODD exit area as defined above]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 of Packer further teach wherein a potential collision zone is determined, with offset distances in accordance with safe distances from surrounding agents. Based on the determination that a collision in the collision zone is possible, the planned path associated with the vehicle may be changed, including the change of vehicle speed to slow the vehicle, as well as determining a safe stop position, such that in an example, a reduced yield time may result as taught in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0096 of Packer [i.e. updating a trajectory of the vehicle comprises controlling a speed of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle trajectory by changing lanes in anticipation of a yield maneuver when in a potential collision zone as taught by Packer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Packer in at least Paragraph 0022, the yield time may be reduced in the event that such a maneuver must be executed by preemptively controlling the vehicle to a safer state.
Regarding Claim 13:
The system according to claim 11, wherein control circuitry is configured to control the vehicle by: in response to the ADS function being currently active, updating a trajectory of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the trajectory of a vehicle is updated in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
However Packer teaches in at least Paragraph 0078 wherein a point in a collision risk zone may include areas proximate to an intersection, within a specified threshold distance [i.e. a UUODD exit area as defined above]. At least Paragraphs 0037 – 0039 of Packer further teach wherein a potential collision zone is determined, with offset distances in accordance with safe distances from surrounding agents. Based on the determination that a collision in the collision zone is possible, the planned path associated with the vehicle may be changed, including the change of vehicle lane or the slowing of the vehicle, as well as determining a safe stop position, such that in an example, changing the lane associated with the vehicle path preemptively may result in a reduced yield time as taught in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0096 of Packer [i.e. updating the trajectory of the vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the adjustment of vehicle trajectory in anticipation of a yield maneuver when in a potential collision zone as taught by Packer.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Packer in at least Paragraph 0022, the yield time may be reduced in the event that such a maneuver must be executed by preemptively controlling the vehicle to a safer state.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (EP 4250266 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2024/0109539 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
The method according to claim 1, wherein controlling the vehicle comprises: in response to the ADS function being currently active, temporarily updating the MRM configuration to a different configuration than the nominal MRM configuration in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
Sato does not appear to specifically disclose updating the MRM configuration to reduce a likelihood of entering a high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area.
However Lee teaches in at least Paragraphs 0046 & 0059 wherein a minimum risk maneuver type may be determined and changed based on the characteristics of the road area to improve the safety of the minimum risk maneuver when executed. For example, at least Paragraph 0064 of Lee teaches wherein a time to complete a minimum risk maneuver type, such as a road shoulder stop, may be determined, and if the time is not within a defined criterion, the vehicle processor may change the minimum risk maneuver type from the road shoulder stop to the traffic lane stop, which is then used to control the vehicle as the minimum risk maneuver [i.e. temporarily updating the MRM configuration to a different configuration than the nominal MRM configuration in order to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle enters the high-risk state should the MRM be executed while the vehicle is in the UUODD exit area].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Sato by incorporating the adjustment of minimum risk maneuver configuration for a vehicle to improve the safety of minimum risk maneuver execution as taught by Lee.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lee in at least Paragraphs 0064 & 0105, the safety of the vehicle performing the minimum risk maneuver may be improved by determining an appropriate minimum risk maneuver to the current vehicle situation.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Yang (US 2023/0399018 A1): Yang recites a vehicle system for performing a minimum risk maneuver, including the determination of failure states in the vehicle and the determination of an appropriate minimum risk maneuver based on such. This may include a straight stop, out of lane stop, or current lane stop, with the type being determined based on factors such as sensor availability and the like.
Park (US 2020/0201323 A1): Park recites a safety control system for an autonomous vehicle, including the determination of faults in the control unit, and the performance of a safety action based on such. The determination of safety response may include determining a road profile, including if a designated safe zone or shoulder is available to pull over to, and selecting a stopping location based on such.
Kazemi (US 2024/0045428 A1): Kazemi recites a vehicle control system, including a vehicle emergency stoppage based on a severity level of a stoppage condition. A motion plan may be generated, including locations for the autonomous vehicle to stop at during travel, with locations being deselected based on their safety, such as being in an intersection or the like.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya 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.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights