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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed 26 November 2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 July 2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4B element “410” should be replaced with “420” as described in [0090], in Figure 7, the examiner believes that at least one of the vehicles labeled with “710” in the left hand portion of the Figure should be labeled with 100, so that the Figure shows the interaction between the own vehicle 100 and additional vehicles, 710 and 720. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: element Cr and Cf in Figure 8 and as described in [0099] and element S950 in Figure 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0052] element “500” should be replaced with element “50”. Appropriate correction is required.
In paragraph [0119] of the specification, element S650 should be replaced with element S950. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a risk of a collision” in line 4. Claim 8 depends indirectly from claim 1 which recites “a risk of a collision”. It is not clear if the prediction of a risk of collision in claim 8 is the same or different than the determining of the risk of collision in claim 1.
Claims 9-11 depend from claim 8 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 12 is directed toward a method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 12 recites:
12. A method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle;
obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;
determining whether to perform a minimal risk maneuver based on at least one among the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;
determining a minimum risk maneuver type, in response the determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver; and
predicting a straight stop allowance space, in response to the determining of the minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determining whether to perform a minimal risk maneuver based on at least one among the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;”, “determining a minimum risk maneuver type, in response the determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver;” and “predicting a straight stop allowance space, in response to the determining of the minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection.” steps encompass a human driver during autonomous driving using received information that the whether to take over the driving and perform a minimal risk maneuver and determining the appropriate type of maneuver and determining straight stop allowance space based on the intersection to avoid a collision.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
12. A method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle;
obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;
determining whether to perform a minimal risk maneuver based on at least one among the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;
determining a minimum risk maneuver type, in response the determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver; and
predicting a straight stop allowance space, in response to the determining of the minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle” and “obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The limitations of “obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle” and “obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed, the additional limitations of obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle” and “obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 12 is not patent eligible.
The examiner notes that claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-11) includes a controller that controls an operation of the vehicle based on determinations and thus integrates the judicial exception. Further claims 13-20 include limitations that cannot be practically performed in the mind. Thus, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (WO 2022/092685,hereinafter "Jang", however the citations provided are to the US equivalent, US Pub. No. 2023/0391369) in view of Sato et al. (US Pub. No. EP4265500B1, hereinafter "Sato", provided in the IDS) .
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a vehicle capable of autonomous driving functions, the vehicle comprising:
at least one sensor configured to sense a surrounding environment of the vehicle and to generate surrounding environment information (see at least Jang Figure 1, sensor 110 and [0031] “The sensor 110 may sense surroundings of the vehicle 100 and generate data related to the surroundings of the vehicle 100. According to the embodiments, the sensor 100 may include at least one of a camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, and a position sensor”);
a processor configured to monitor a state of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information and to determine whether to perform a minimum risk maneuver based on at least one among the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information during an autonomous driving of the vehicle (see at least Jang Figure 1, processor 130 and controller 120 and Figure 3, step 120, determine failure state and [0073] “When there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle 100 can determine a failure state (S120). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 and identify the failed components. The vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 in real time. The vehicle 100 may determine which sensor is currently available (or operable) among the sensors 110.” ); and
a controller configured to control operation of the vehicle according to control of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a minimum risk maneuver type in response to determining to perform the minimum risk maneuver [[and to predict a straight stop allowance space and a risk of a collision]] in response to the determined minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop [[within an intersection]](see at least Jang Figure 1, controller 120 and Figure 3, step 130 and step 140 select type of minimal risk maneuver and perform minimal risk [0075] “The vehicle 100 may select a type of the minimal risk maneuver (S130). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of the minimal risk maneuver suitable for a current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.” See also [0077] “] The vehicle 100 can initiate the minimal risk maneuver by using the selected type of the minimal risk maneuver (S140). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 can control the vehicle 100 according to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver. For example, the processor 130 of the vehicle 100 may transmit a control command corresponding to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver to the controller 120, and the controller 120 may control the vehicle 100 in accordance with the control command.”)
While Jang teaches a straight stop minimum risk maneuver, Jang does not disclose predicting a straight stop allowance space and risk of collision in response to the determined minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection.
Sato teaches predicting a straight stop allowance space and risk of collision in response to the determined minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection (see at least Sato wherein a target stopping area corresponds to a straight stop allowance space [0035-0036 ] “While the automated driving system is active, the environmental condition estimating part 11 continuously monitors whether the driving status of the vehicle, the surrounding environmental conditions, and the like are maintained within the operational design domain (ODD) of the system, on the basis of external information acquired through the external sensor 21, vehicle information acquired by the internal sensor 22, communication conditions with the remote-control base station 25R, and the like. In the case of being outside the ODD or the case in which the system does not operate normally, activation of the RMF for safely stopping the vehicle 1 inside a target stopping area is demanded” See also Figure 6 and [0006-0007] “…an object thereof is to lower the risk of disturbance of traffic flow or contact or collision with others in traffic at an intersection when the risk mitigation function is activated.” See also [0058-0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang with the teaching of Sato with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Sato teaches the process prevents collisions with others in intersections (see at least Sato [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses a method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing a surrounding environment of the vehicle during an autonomous driving of the vehicle (see at least Jang Figure 1, sensor 110 and [0031] “The sensor 110 may sense surroundings of the vehicle 100 and generate data related to the surroundings of the vehicle 100. According to the embodiments, the sensor 100 may include at least one of a camera, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) sensor, and a position sensor”);;
obtaining vehicle state information by monitoring a state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle (see at least Jang Figure 1, processor 130 and controller 120 and Figure 3, step 120, determine failure state and [0073] “When there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle 100 can determine a failure state (S120). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 and identify the failed components. The vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 in real time. The vehicle 100 may determine which sensor is currently available (or operable) among the sensors 110.” );
determining whether to perform a minimal risk maneuver based on at least one among the surrounding environment information or the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle (see at least Jang Figure 1, processor 130 and controller 120 and Figure 3, step 120, determine failure state and [0073] “When there is a request for the minimal risk maneuver, the vehicle 100 can determine a failure state (S120). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 and identify the failed components. The vehicle 100 may monitor the state of each of the components of the vehicle 100 in real time. The vehicle 100 may determine which sensor is currently available (or operable) among the sensors 110.” );
determining a minimum risk maneuver type, in response the determining to perform the minimal risk maneuver (see at least Jang Figure 1, controller 120 and Figure 3, step 130 and step 140 select type of minimal risk maneuver and perform minimal risk [0075] “The vehicle 100 may select a type of the minimal risk maneuver (S130). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of the minimal risk maneuver suitable for a current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.” See also [0077] “] The vehicle 100 can initiate the minimal risk maneuver by using the selected type of the minimal risk maneuver (S140). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 can control the vehicle 100 according to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver. For example, the processor 130 of the vehicle 100 may transmit a control command corresponding to the selected type of the minimum risk maneuver to the controller 120, and the controller 120 may control the vehicle 100 in accordance with the control command.”); and
[[predicting a straight stop allowance space,]] in response to the determining of the minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop [[within an intersection]] (see at least Jang Figure 4, straight stop, and [0080] describing a straight stop and Figure 3, step 130 and step 140 select type of minimal risk maneuver and perform minimal risk [0075] “The vehicle 100 may select a type of the minimal risk maneuver (S130). According to the embodiments, the vehicle 100 may select the type of the minimal risk maneuver suitable for a current failure state based on the determination result of the failure state.”).
While Jang teaches a straight stop minimum risk maneuver (see at least Figure 3 and 4 and [0080]) Jang does not disclose predicting a straight stop allowance space and risk of collision in response to the determined minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection.
Sato teaches predicting a straight stop allowance space and risk of collision in response to the determined minimum risk maneuver type being a straight stop within an intersection ((see at least Sato wherein a target stopping area corresponds to a straight stop allowance space [0035-0036 ] “While the automated driving system is active, the environmental condition estimating part 11 continuously monitors whether the driving status of the vehicle, the surrounding environmental conditions, and the like are maintained within the operational design domain (ODD) of the system, on the basis of external information acquired through the external sensor 21, vehicle information acquired by the internal sensor 22, communication conditions with the remote-control base station 25R, and the like. In the case of being outside the ODD or the case in which the system does not operate normally, activation of the RMF for safely stopping the vehicle 1 inside a target stopping area is demanded” See also Figure 6 and [0006-0007] “…an object thereof is to lower the risk of disturbance of traffic flow or contact or collision with others in traffic at an intersection when the risk mitigation function is activated.” See also [0058-0059]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang with the teaching of Sato with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Sato teaches the process prevents collisions with others in intersections (see at least Sato [0007]).
Claim(s) 2-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Sato in further view of Yang et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0055619, hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jang and Sato teach the vehicle of claim 1, wherein a straight stop is performed and wherein the straight stop is to be performed while remaining in the lane which presumable requires information about the lane width (see also Jang discussion of lane width in [0185]), however the combination of Jang and Sato do not explicitly teach the processor is configured to calculate a lateral length of the straight stop allowance space based on a width of a lane and a maximum allowable range value of a lane.
Yang teaches calculate a lateral length of the straight stop allowance space based on a width of a lane and a maximum allowable range value of a lane (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0015] and [0023] “According to an embodiment, the local map may include, in a forward direction of the host vehicle, a forward-traveling lane section corresponding to a width of a lane on which the host vehicle travels forward, … a front allowance section extending forward from the host vehicle section….” And [0023] “According to an embodiment, the local step may include the step of forming, in a forward direction of the host vehicle, a forward-traveling lane section corresponding to a width of a lane on which the host vehicle travels forward, … a front allowance section extending forward from the host vehicle section and indicating a minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle to stop without collision…” See also [0047-0050] “[0047] Referring to FIG. 3, in the local map 190, a horizontal line, which extends in a direction matched with a forward direction of the host vehicle 100, may have the width which is the sum of the width of a central lane and the widths of lanes at both sides of the central lane. The horizontal line may include a forward-traveling lane section 191 corresponding to the width of the lane on which the host vehicle 100 travels forward, …, a front allowance section “E” extending forward from the host vehicle section “C….[0050] The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jang and Sato with the teaching of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches, knowledge of the width of the lane from the local map allows the vehicle to stop within its lane without collision (see at least Yang [0015-0016])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a first distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space based on a first velocity of the vehicle and a maximum deceleration (see at least Yang Figure 3 and See also [0047-0053] “[0047] Referring to FIG. 3, in the local map 190, a horizontal line, which extends in a direction matched with a forward direction of the host vehicle 100, may have the width which is the sum of the width of a central lane and the widths of lanes at both sides of the central lane. The horizontal line may include a forward-traveling lane section 191 corresponding to the width of the lane on which the host vehicle 100 travels forward, …, a front allowance section “E” extending forward from the host vehicle section “C….[0050] The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….” The examiner notes that equation 1 is based on the host vehicle’s velocity. ).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a second distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal end point of the straight stop allowance space based on position information of the vehicle and a digital map (see at least Sato wherein the no stop area is decided based on distance from the intersection, the intersection position being determined from a digital map See at least [0084] “An appropriate range is set for the no-stop zone A such that the influence on the traffic flow of other traffic participants at the intersection C1 is reduced. For example, an area on the inner side of the intersection edges, an area inside the stop lines for an intersection with stop lines, an area within a certain distance (for example, 6 meters) from the intersection edges for an intersection with no stop lines or pedestrian crossings, an area inside pedestrian crossings for an intersection with no stop lines but with pedestrian crossings, or a no-parking/stopping zone can be set as the no-stop zone A at the intersection and near the intersection.” See also no stopping zone as showed in figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0074] “The automated operation device 10 is configured to acquire the vehicle location with the environmental condition estimating part 11 by matching vehicle location information from the positioning means 24 with map information in the map information database 23, and to search for a plurality of target stopping location candidates with the RMF part 12 in the case of RMF activation on the basis of the vehicle location and map information about the surroundings, continuously during automated driving. As for the target stopping location candidates for RMF, locations on paths different from the global path set by the automated operation device 10 may be set in consideration of reducing encounter points with other traffic participants.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a third distance from the vehicle to the intersection based on the position information of the vehicle and the digital map (See at least Sato figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] “The automated operation device 10 is configured to acquire the vehicle location with the environmental condition estimating part 11 by matching vehicle location information from the positioning means 24 with map information in the map information database 23, and to search for a plurality of target stopping location candidates with the RMF part 12 in the case of RMF activation on the basis of the vehicle location and map information about the surroundings, continuously during automated driving. As for the target stopping location candidates for RMF, locations on paths different from the global path set by the automated operation device 10 may be set in consideration of reducing encounter points with other traffic participants.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection based on a result of comparing a difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection, and a reference value to each other (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 6, wherein in response to the difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection being smaller than the reference value, the processor is configured to determine that the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jang, Sato, and Yang teach the vehicle of claim 6, wherein in response to the difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection being greater than the reference value, the processor is configured to predict a risk of a collision while passing through the intersection, and in response to it being determined that there is no risk of the collision while passing through the intersection, the processor is configured to perform the straight stop after passing through the intersection (see at least Yang Figure 3 and also [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable or not of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value) and proceeding through the intersection accordingly. See also Sato for determination of risk of collision at Figure 10 and [0105-0107] “For the target stopping location candidate T1, the number of encounter points is four, that is, an encounter point with the straight-through vehicle 2 on the right in a risk area RA1, an encounter point with the straight-through vehicle 3 on the left in a risk area RA2, an encounter point with the pedestrian attempting to cross the pedestrian crossing D1 in a risk area RA3, and an encounter point with the pedestrian attempting to cross the pedestrian crossing D2 in a risk area RA4. Consequently, the points related to the number of encounter points are Rf1 = 40. Assuming that the predicted travel distance is 100 meters and the predicted travel time is 33 seconds from the current location of the vehicle 1 to the target stopping location candidate T1, the points related to the predicted travel distance are Rf2 = 5 and the points related to the predicted travel time are Rf3 = 3.3. In this case, the risk factor RF of the target stopping location candidate T1 is 48.3 (= Rf1 + Rf2 + Rf3).” ).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jang and Sato teach the method of claim 12, wherein the predicting of the straight stop allowance space comprises:
[[calculating a lateral length of the straight stop allowance space based on a width of a lane and a maximum allowable range value of a lane;]]
[[calculating a first distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space based on a first velocity of the vehicle and a maximum deceleration;]]
calculating a second distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal end point of the straight stop allowance space based on position information of the vehicle and a digital map (see at least Sato wherein the no stop area is decided based on distance from the intersection, the intersection position being determined from a digital map See at least [0084] “An appropriate range is set for the no-stop zone A such that the influence on the traffic flow of other traffic participants at the intersection C1 is reduced. For example, an area on the inner side of the intersection edges, an area inside the stop lines for an intersection with stop lines, an area within a certain distance (for example, 6 meters) from the intersection edges for an intersection with no stop lines or pedestrian crossings, an area inside pedestrian crossings for an intersection with no stop lines but with pedestrian crossings, or a no-parking/stopping zone can be set as the no-stop zone A at the intersection and near the intersection.” See also no stopping zone as showed in figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0074] “The automated operation device 10 is configured to acquire the vehicle location with the environmental condition estimating part 11 by matching vehicle location information from the positioning means 24 with map information in the map information database 23, and to search for a plurality of target stopping location candidates with the RMF part 12 in the case of RMF activation on the basis of the vehicle location and map information about the surroundings, continuously during automated driving. As for the target stopping location candidates for RMF, locations on paths different from the global path set by the automated operation device 10 may be set in consideration of reducing encounter points with other traffic participants.”); and
calculating a third distance from the vehicle to the intersection based on position information of the vehicle and the digital map (See at least Sato figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] “The automated operation device 10 is configured to acquire the vehicle location with the environmental condition estimating part 11 by matching vehicle location information from the positioning means 24 with map information in the map information database 23, and to search for a plurality of target stopping location candidates with the RMF part 12 in the case of RMF activation on the basis of the vehicle location and map information about the surroundings, continuously during automated driving. As for the target stopping location candidates for RMF, locations on paths different from the global path set by the automated operation device 10 may be set in consideration of reducing encounter points with other traffic participants.”).
However, the combination of Jang and Sato do not teach wherein the predicting of the straight stop allowance space comprises:
calculating a lateral length of the straight stop allowance space based on a width of a lane and a maximum allowable range value of a lane;
calculating a first distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space based on a first velocity of the vehicle and a maximum deceleration.
Yang teaches
calculating a lateral length of the straight stop allowance space based on a width of a lane and a maximum allowable range value of a lane (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0015] and [0023] “According to an embodiment, the local map may include, in a forward direction of the host vehicle, a forward-traveling lane section corresponding to a width of a lane on which the host vehicle travels forward, … a front allowance section extending forward from the host vehicle section….” And [0023] “According to an embodiment, the local step may include the step of forming, in a forward direction of the host vehicle, a forward-traveling lane section corresponding to a width of a lane on which the host vehicle travels forward, … a front allowance section extending forward from the host vehicle section and indicating a minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle to stop without collision…” See also [0047-0050] “[0047] Referring to FIG. 3, in the local map 190, a horizontal line, which extends in a direction matched with a forward direction of the host vehicle 100, may have the width which is the sum of the width of a central lane and the widths of lanes at both sides of the central lane. The horizontal line may include a forward-traveling lane section 191 corresponding to the width of the lane on which the host vehicle 100 travels forward, …, a front allowance section “E” extending forward from the host vehicle section “C….[0050] The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1.”);
calculating a first distance from the vehicle to a longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space based on a first velocity of the vehicle and a maximum deceleration (see at least Yang Figure 3 and See also [0047-0053] “[0047] Referring to FIG. 3, in the local map 190, a horizontal line, which extends in a direction matched with a forward direction of the host vehicle 100, may have the width which is the sum of the width of a central lane and the widths of lanes at both sides of the central lane. The horizontal line may include a forward-traveling lane section 191 corresponding to the width of the lane on which the host vehicle 100 travels forward, …, a front allowance section “E” extending forward from the host vehicle section “C….[0050] The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….” The examiner notes that equation 1 is based on the host vehicle’s velocity. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jang and Sato with the teaching of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yang teaches, knowledge of the width of the lane and the longitudinal end point allows the vehicle to stop within its lane without collision (see at least Yang [0015-0016]) .
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jang, Sato and Yang teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
after the predicting of the straight stop allowance space, determining whether the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection based on a result of comparing a difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection, and a reference value to each other (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value)).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jang, Sato and Yang teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the determining whether the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection determines that the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection, in response to the difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection being smaller than the reference value (see at least Yang Figure 3 and [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value)).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jang, Sato and Yang teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising, after the determining whether the straight stop is possible before entering the intersection, predicting a risk of a collision while passing through the intersection, in response to the difference between the first distance to the longitudinal starting point of the straight stop allowance space and the third distance from the vehicle to the intersection being greater than the reference value (see at least Yang Figure 3 and also [0047-0053] wherein the minimum stopping distance is determined as cited above. For example [0050] “The front allowance section “E” may be the minimum stop distance for allowing the host vehicle 100 to stop without collision, when the forward vehicle 200 positioned at the front-side portion of the host vehicle 100 is braked at the maximum deceleration, and may be determined through Equation 1….”. See at least Sato and the no stopping area figures 6a, 7a, 8a, and 10 and for example discussion [0084] and [0074] wherein the distance to the intersection is determined based on map information and wherein Sato defines a no stopping area A within intersection. Accordingly, it would be obvious to compare and determine whether the vehicle is capable or not of stopping prior to the no stopping area and providing a buffer (i.e. a reference value) and proceeding through the intersection accordingly. See also Sato for determination of risk of collision at Figure 10 and [0105-0107] “For the target stopping location candidate T1, the number of encounter points is four, that is, an encounter point with the straight-through vehicle 2 on the right in a risk area RA1, an encounter point with the straight-through vehicle 3 on the left in a risk area RA2, an encounter point with the pedestrian attempting to cross the pedestrian crossing D1 in a risk area RA3, and an encounter point with the pedestrian attempting to cross the pedestrian crossing D2 in a risk area RA4. Consequently, the points related to the number of encounter points are Rf1 = 40. Assuming that the predicted travel distance is 100 meters and the predicted travel time is 33 seconds from the current location of the vehicle 1 to the target stopping location candidate T1, the points related to the predicted travel distance are Rf2 = 5 and the points related to the predicted travel time are Rf3 = 3.3. In this case, the risk factor RF of the target stopping location candidate T1 is 48.3 (= Rf1 + Rf2 + Rf3).”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “calculate an intersection passage time of the vehicle based on the first velocity of the vehicle and the second distance to the longitudinal end point of the straight stop allowance space;”, “determine whether there is a secondary vehicle capable of entering the straight stop allowance space based on traffic light information and neighboring vehicle information;”, “determine whether there is a first secondary vehicle in a side direction of the vehicle based on neighboring vehicle information, in response to determining that the secondary vehicle is capable of entering the straight stop allowance space;” and
“calculate an entry time of the first secondary vehicle into the straight stop allowance space based on a second velocity of the first secondary vehicle and a fourth distance from the first secondary vehicle to the straight stop allowance space, in response to determining that the first secondary vehicle is in a side direction of the vehicle;” as recited in claim 9 and generally claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP-3539204-B2 is cited for showing safe stopping distance L based on deceleration and velocity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights