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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/985,804, with an effective filing date of 12/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 12/18/2024, claiming priority to EP Pat. Pub. No. 21213104.9 and DIV of US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0182735 A1, filed 12/8/2021 and 11/29/2022, respectively. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Applicant is further reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the contents of the abstract exceeded the allowed 150 word limit (e.g., 189 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 2-3) appears to contain a typographical error where a position sensor should be corrected to and at least one [[a]] position sensor; and
Claim 3 (line 2), claim 16 (line 2), and claim 20 (line 3) contain a typographical error where drive-off time ts should be corrected to drive-off time [[ts]] td.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites in line 5 the limitation a processor connected to the object sensor, the position sensor, and the non-volatile memory which requires both an object sensor and a position sensor, but in claim 1 lines 2-3 the claim recites the limitation at least one object sensor for sensing objects in an environment in a vicinity of the vehicle, a position sensor for sensing a speed of the vehicle or for sensing a position of the vehicle which under its broadest reasonable interpretation requires at least one sensor (e.g., either an object sensor or a position sensor) and it is unclear whether the position sensor is an integral part of what the Applicant deems as their invention or not.
Claims 2-9 are rejected on the basis that they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation vicinity of the vehicle corresponding to a circle of at most 10m radius measured from an outer edge of the vehicle, and the claim also recites preferably 5 m radius which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The term “outside” in claim 10 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “outside” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation outside of a vehicle is rendered indefinite because it is unclear if the sensors are mounted on the exterior surface of the vehicle or in a vicinity outside of the vehicle (i.e., mounted to a structure such as a post, wall, or ceiling).
Claims 11-13 are rejected on the basis that they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed toward a computer program product and, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to “software per se” as it is lacking any recitation of structure. The claim recites both the term “product” and the phrases “executable by/run in a processor” which are seen by the Examiner as insufficient to prove any form of structure and is understood to one of ordinary skill in computer science as mere software.
The claim also does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments, which would then incorporate a structural recitation. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
Claim 18 may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim (i.e., A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions…"). Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment and would add sufficient structure to the claim.
Claims 19-20 are rejected on the basis that they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
___________________________________________
Claim 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic control unit for controlling a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An electronic control unit for a vehicle, comprising:
at least one object sensor for sensing objects in an environment in a vicinity of the vehicle,
a position sensor for sensing a speed of the vehicle or for sensing a position of the vehicle;
a non-volatile memory; and
a processor connected to the object sensor, the position sensor, and the non-volatile memory, the processor being configured to instruct the object sensor to sense and collect data on the environment in the vicinity of the vehicle from a collect time to when the position sensor measures a vehicle speed below a predetermined threshold or measures a vehicle position that corresponds to the position of a parking area, and
the processor creating an environmental map of stationary objects around the vehicle on the basis of data of the at least one object sensor [mental process/step] and
storing the environmental map in the non-volatile memory prior to a sleep time ts, following on the collect time to, when the electronic control unit is placed in a sleep mode.
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. For example, “creating an environmental map …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement of which objects are approximate to the vehicle and are static and generating a map based on that information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An electronic control unit for a vehicle, comprising:
at least one object sensor for sensing objects in an environment in a vicinity of the vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors],
a position sensor for sensing a speed of the vehicle or for sensing a position of the vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
a non-volatile memory; and
a processor connected to the object sensor, the position sensor, and the non-volatile memory, the processor being configured to instruct the object sensor to sense and collect data on the environment in the vicinity of the vehicle from a collect time to when the position sensor measures a vehicle speed below a predetermined threshold or measures a vehicle position that corresponds to the position of a parking area [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)], and
the processor creating an environmental map of stationary objects around the vehicle on the basis of data of the at least one object sensor and
storing the environmental map in the non-volatile memory prior to a sleep time ts, following on the collect time to, when the electronic control unit is placed in a sleep mode [insignificant extra-solution activity (storing results of the mental process)].
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 “sensing…,” “sense and collect…,” and “storing…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (electronic control unit) to perform the process. In particular, the sensing steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering object, position, and or speed data for use in the creating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sense and collect steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering object, position, and or speed data for use in the creating step based on criteria), and amounts to mere data source manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity The storing results step on the non-volatile memory is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing the map result from the creating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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 above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the creating … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “sensing…,” “sense and collect…,” and “storing…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 10, 14, and 18 recite a method, an electronic control unit, and a computer program, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 10, 14, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as creating and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as display, warn, retrieve, and obtain. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 18.
However, dependent claim 6 recites additional limitations that properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically the limitation the electronic control unit further comprising an automatic braking system or an actuator to reduce a vehicle speed or steer the vehicle starting after the drive-off time td based on the retrieved environmental map or on the updated map. Therefore, dependent claim 6 is patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-7 and 8-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amato et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0261601 A1), hereinafter referred to as Amato in view of Zadeh et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0184278 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zadeh.
Regarding claim 1, Amato discloses:
An electronic control unit for a vehicle ([0071] sentence (s.) 3, vehicle computing systems including one or more control systems, which is construed as an electronic control unit), comprising:
at least one object sensor for sensing objects in an environment in a vicinity of the vehicle ([0006] receiving object data including one or more portions of sensor data),
a position sensor for sensing a speed of the vehicle or for sensing a position of the vehicle ( [0081] s.2, one or more sensors including global positioning system (GPS) which is known to sense a position and a speed of a vehicle);
a non-volatile memory ([0006] s.1, one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media and [0073] s.3 use of one or more memory devices); and
a processor connected to the object sensor, the position sensor, and the non-volatile memory, the processor being configured to instruct the object sensor to sense and collect data on the environment in the vicinity of the vehicle from a collect time to when the position sensor measures a vehicle speed below a predetermined threshold or measures a vehicle position that corresponds to the position of a parking area ([0096] s.1, object data output by the one or more sensor devices can be used in the detection and/or recognition of one or more objects and/or transportation infrastructure (i.e., parking lots) and [0097] s.1, the object data output by the one or more sensor devices can include a set of three-dimensional points (e.g., x, y, and z coordinates) associated with one or more physical dimensions (e.g., the length, width, and/or height) of the one or more objects in the one or more images), and
the processor creating an environmental map of stationary objects around the vehicle on the basis of data of the at least one object sensor and storing the environmental map in the non-volatile memory ([0044] The object detection system can generate, based in part on the visual descriptor output, a heat map associated with the one or more images and [0082] system utilizes geographic map data as well that can include any combination of two-dimensional or three-dimensional geographic map data associated with the area in which the vehicle can travel including areas the vehicle is currently travelling, has previously travelled, or will travel to in the future which in turn is stored in the memory devices).
Although Amato discloses storing, creating, and utilizing map data, as well as the vehicle having an autonomous operational mode, a semi-autonomous operational mode, a park mode, and/or a sleep mode in [0077] s. 3, it does not explicitly disclose:
storing the environmental map in the non-volatile memory prior to a sleep time ts, following on the collect time tc, when the electronic control unit is placed in a sleep mode.
However, Zadeh teaches [2255] s.1 the system orders or processes our data, files, and Z-web, including updating the parameters and weights, including reliability factors for nodes, and also taking care of the queues, during low computation time periods or low loads or idle modes, to be more efficient. Idle mode is construed as being correlated to a park mode which necessarily occurs between the collect time and a sleep mode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and data science before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electronic control system of Amato, by incorporating the idle time data aggregation teachings of Zadeh, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Zadeh in [2255] above, allowing for a more efficient time for aggregating information.
Claims 10, 14, and 18 recite a method, an electronic control unit, and a computer program, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 10, 14, and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit of claim 1, the processor further configured to retrieve
the environmental map from the non-volatile memory after a drive-off time td, following on the sleep time ts, when an increase in vehicle speed is initiated and the electronic control unit is re-activated out of the sleep mode (see claim 1 regarding retrieving of map information for areas the vehicle will travel in the future or is currently driving and the individual modes, which may activate the vehicle control system after vehicle speed is initiated as the system may be fully autonomous and provided navigational inputs (i.e., environmental maps)).
Claims 12, 15, and 19 recite a method, an electronic control unit, and a computer program, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claims 12, 15, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit of claim 2, the processor further instructing the at least one object sensor to collect further data, starting at the drive-off time ts, the processor complementing the stored environmental map with the further data to an updated map (see claim 1 regarding acquiring data that pertains to the current driving position of the vehicle and [0085] the autonomy system may determine a route for the vehicle in real-time and/or near real-time which is construed as complementally updating the stored map with further data).
Claims 16 and 20 recite an electronic control unit, and a computer program,
respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claims 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit according to claim 2, further comprising a display connected to the processor, the processor providing a visual aid for a driver of the vehicle after the drive-off time td and based on the retrieved environmental map or on the updated map ([0030] notification systems (e.g., devices used to provide notifications to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, including electronic communication devices, display devices, status indicator lights, and/or audio output systems)).
Claim 17 recites an electronic control unit having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit according to claim 2, further comprising an audio system connected to the processor to provide an audio warning after the drive-off time td, based on the retrieved environmental map or on the updated map (see claim 4 regarding [0030] notification systems including audio output systems).
Regarding claim 6, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit according to claim 2, the electronic control unit further comprising
an automatic braking system or an actuator to reduce a vehicle speed or steer the vehicle starting after the drive-off time td based on the retrieved environmental map or on the updated map ([0030] braking systems (e.g., brakes of the vehicle including mechanical and/or electric brakes); propulsion systems (e.g., motors or engines including electric engines or internal combustion engines); and/or steering systems used to change the path, course, or direction of travel of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit according to claim 1, the environmental map comprising a proximity map of the vicinity of the vehicle ([0152] object output generated at can be used by one or more vehicle systems (e.g., vehicle systems used to control the operation of a vehicle including an autonomous vehicle) to perform one or more actions including activating vehicle systems based on detection of the one or more objects (e.g., activating brakes when an object is within a predetermined proximity of the vehicle) or modifying the path of the vehicle (e.g., maneuver the vehicle around objects including buildings, vehicles, and/or pedestrians) and [0128] classification model can generate an output indicating that the object detected within the boundary area is not a background (e.g., the object detected within the boundary area is of interest)) corresponding to a circle of at most 10 m radius measured from an outer edge of the vehicle, preferably 5 m radius ([0075] s.2, the vehicle can provide data indicative of the state of the one or more objects (e.g., objects external to the vehicle) within a predefined distance of the vehicle to the operations computing system, which can store an indication, record, and/or other data indicative of the state of the one or more objects within a predefined distance of the vehicle in one or more memory devices associated with the operations computing system and based on [0128 and 0152] above, it is construed that a boundary area may necessarily be predetermined to a maximum radius of 10m to ensure the safety of the vehicle and the objects around the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit according to claim 1, the object sensor comprising at least one of an ultrasonic sensor, lidar, radar or camera ([0026] s.2, use of LiDAR technology and [0030] use of LiDAR, radar, and or cameras).
Regarding claim 9, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The electronic control unit for a vehicle according to claim 2, the processor using a threat evaluation algorithm to identify when an automatic intervention is needed to avoid collision based on the retrieved environmental map and a vehicle trajectory ([0027] s.3, modifying the path of the vehicle to avoid the detected objects (e.g., vehicle motion planning and/or autonomy systems)).
Regarding claim 13, Amato, as modified by Zadeh, discloses:
The method according to claim 12, at the time of retrieving the environmental map, new data being collected by the one or more sensors and transmitted to the processor, the processor providing an updated support to the driver for departure, the updated support corresponding to a combination of the stored environmental map and the new data ([0030] notification systems (e.g., devices used to provide notifications to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles, including electronic communication devices, display devices, status indicator lights, and/or audio output systems)).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Huang et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 105404844 A) is directed towards a road boundary detecting method based on multi-laser radar for a self-driving vehicle where boundary thresholds of under 10m are taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665