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 .
Contents of this Office Action:
35 U.S.C. 101 analysis – there is no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, but the Examiner has included an explanation why
Prior Art rejections
Explanation of prior art not relied on.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
There is no 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection because each of the independent claims recite controlling the driving of the vehicle based on a change in a control condition. This is not simply an algorithm, rather the use of an algorithm to control a vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tengilimoglu, “Implications of automated vehicles for physical road environment: A comprehensive review,” March 8, 2022, hereinafter “Tengilimoglu”.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Tengilimoglu discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and apparatus for controlling driving of a vehicle, the method comprising:
during a smart cruise control (SCC) operation, determining, by one or more processors of the apparatus, based on control information of the vehicle, a road condition of a road on which the vehicle is driven (Page 4, P2 discloses at Levels 1-2, the driving assistance systems provide the driver with longitudinal or/and lateral vehicle motion control in the form of adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance. Page 9, P2 discloses Level 4 systems can operate without any driver involvement within a specific ODD, but once the vehicle leaves that ODD (e.g. due to adverse weather conditions, work zones etc.), drivers need to take control);
determining, based on the road condition being different from a pre-set standard road condition, whether a driver’s operation data is detected or not (Page 3, P1 discloses operational design domains (ODD), which based on the footnote is the set of driving conditions for a given automated driving system under which it is designed to operate. These driving conditions may include weather conditions, road infrastructure components, and vehicle-related conditions. This is a determination of road condition pre-set standards. Page 9, P2, discloses that when a weather condition puts the vehicle outside its ODD a control condition needs to change (i.e. the driver needs to take control) and based on the determination of if the driver’s operation data is detected or not, the vehicle needs a safe area to stop/park and wait for the driver to be ready, or wait for conditions to improve to the extent where the automated control system is able to proceed);
changing, based on the determination, a control condition for controlling driving of the vehicle (As discussed in the limitation above the change could be any of the driver taking control or the car stopping);
controlling, based on the changed control condition, driving of the vehicle (See limitation above).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the changing the control condition comprises one of:
setting a first control condition for the control condition based on the driver’s operation data being detected; or
setting a second control condition for the control condition based on the driver’s operation data not being detected (the Examiner will choose this conditional and as discussed in claim 1, a control condition is the vehicle stopping and waiting when the driver is not ready to take control of the vehicle as in Page 9, P2).
Regarding claims 3-6 and 14-17, claim 2 and claim 12 both recite an “or” condition where a determination is made on if a driver’s operation data is detected or not. Because only one needs to be fulfilled (i.e. in this case the operation data is not detected), then claims 3-6 and 14-17 are optional claims because the operation data is not detected.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Tengilimoglu discloses controlling driving of the vehicle based on the SCC and a pre-set standard range being satisfied, wherein the satisfaction of the pre-set standard range is determined based on sensor information from the vehicle and navigation information from a navigation sensor (As in claim 1, when the pre-set standard range is satisfied, the vehicle will drive. Page 4, last paragraph discloses AVs rely on their onboard sensors, embedded software and artificial intelligence in vehicles so that they do not need additional external infrastructure or communications).
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 19, Tengilimoglu discloses controlling the driving of the vehicle based on the SCC such that a required acceleration of the SCC and a slope of the required acceleration are lowered (As in claim 1, the car comes to a stop).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over Tengilimoglu in view of Alvarez, “A Real-Time Intelligent Intra-vehicular Temperature Control Framework,” A Real-Time Intelligent Intra-vehicular Temperature Control Framework | Springer Nature Link, 2021, hereinafter “Alvarez.”
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Tengilimoglu discloses wherein the sensor information comprises information from an illumination sensor (Page 16, section 4.8.2 discloses illumination sensors).
However, Tengilimoglu does not disclose information from an ambient temperature sensor.
However, Alvarez does teach this limitation on Page 7, P2 teaching in order to monitor the vehicle’s ambient temperature, the system is equipped with a high accuracy DHT22 temperature sensor module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature sensor to control of the vehicle’s climate control system.
Prior Art Cited but not Relied on
Ogbac, “What Is Adaptive Cruise Control? Is It Worth Paying For?” discusses how adaptive cruise control works, specifically that if a slower vehicle moves in front of you, the system will automatically slow to maintain a pre-set following distance and then accelerate again to your originally set speed once the vehicle moves out of the way. Most adaptive cruise control systems allow the driver to adjust the following distance at intervals ranging from close to far. Advanced systems integrate with the vehicle's navigation system and/or forward looking cameras to even slow around tighter curves and reduce speed if the posted speed limit changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights