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 .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/15/2025 has been considered by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 4 and in claim 9, line 9, and in claim 17, line 9, it appears “; and” should be simply “;” for grammatical correctness. 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 and 14 is unclear because “ determine a type of minimal risk maneuver … an immediate deceleration type and a limited autonomous driving type” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 3 and 16 is unclear because “ determine the immediate deceleration type to be the type of the minimum risk maneuver” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 4 and 17 is unclear because “ immediate deceleration type… emergency stop type… gradual stop type… and gradual stop type within lane type…” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 5 unclear because “ emergency stop type” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 6 unclear because “ gradual stop type” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 7 unclear because “ gradual stop within lane type” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed by the term “type” and introduces indefiniteness to a definite term.
Claim 8, 11, 18 and 19 is unclear because “ limited autonomous driving type” raises relative terminology in the MPEP 2173.05(b). It is unclear what scope is encompassed 2, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the functions needed for autonomous driving are required and contradicts "comprise at least one among…" since dependent claims 6 and 7 recite all functions in the list. Claims 6 and 7 depending on claim 2 recite the functions as required functions so it is unclear if in claim 2 "comprise at least one among" should just recite "comprising …".
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear if the immediate deceleration type comprises all three limitations: emergency stop type, gradual stop type, and gradual stop within lane type. Since first, second and third decelerations are described. Further claims 5, 6, and 7 recite that the processor is configured to determine the emergency stop type, the gradual stop type and the gradual stop within lane type as required limitations which contradicts the language in claim 4 which was optional with the language "immediate deceleration type comprises at least one among an emergency stop type …" This contradicts the claim language “at least one among …” which does not require all to be present.
Claim 10 is indefinite because a center line is a relative position, unclear wat the metes and bounds of "a center line".
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/994382. Claim 1 of an autonomous driving vehicle of the instant application is compared to claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/994382. Although claims 1 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application contains a broader independent claim than claim 1 of the US Patent No: U.S. Patent Application No. 18/994382 as shown below in the table.
Instant Application: 18/994,739
CoPending Application:18/994382
1. An autonomous driving vehicle, comprising:at least one sensor configured to sense surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environment information;a processor configured to monitor state of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information and to control autonomous driving of the vehicle; anda controller configured to control operation of the vehicle according to the control of the processor,wherein the processor is configured to:sense whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed based on at least one among the surrounding environment information and the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle;determine a type of the minimal risk maneuver based on the vehicle state information when the minimal risk maneuver is needed; andcontrol the vehicle to stop based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver, and wherein the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprises at least one among an immediate deceleration type and a limited autonomous driving type.
1. An autonomous driving vehicle, comprising: at least one sensor configured to sense surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environment information; a processor configured to monitor state of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information and to control autonomous driving of the vehicle; and a controller configured to control operation of the vehicle according to the control of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: sense whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed based on at least one among the surrounding environment information and the vehicle state information during autonomous driving of the vehicle; determine a type of the minimal risk maneuver based on normally operating functions among functions specified for the minimal risk maneuver when the minimal risk maneuver is needed; and control the vehicle to stop based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver, wherein the functions specified for the minimal risk maneuver comprise at least one among a lateral control function, an acceleration function, a deceleration function, a lane change function, and a safe area detection function.
Further, claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of additional co-pending U.S. Patent Application No.18/659121, 18/659065, 18/817387, and 19/001968 and analysis table is not included for brevity.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Taekyung et al. (US 20210269063 A1) in view of ISHIOKA ATSUYUKI et al. (JP 2020163986 A) (Machine Translation Attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches, an autonomous driving vehicle, comprising: at least one sensor configured to sense surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environment information (Fig. 3, sensing unit 270, see at least, ¶80-83, Lee); a processor configured to monitor state of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information and to control autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig. 3, processor 170, monitors vehicle stat information and may continuously generate emergency travel routes during implementation of autonomous driving, see at least, ¶88-90, Lee); and a controller configured to control operation of the vehicle according to the control of the processor (Fig. 3, the processor can provide a control signal to at least the main ECU 240, see at least, ¶55, Lee), wherein the processor is configured to: sense whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed based on at least one among the surrounding environment information and the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig. 4, S410, upon determining a malfunction has occurred, may perform at least one operation in the flow chart, see at least, ¶92, Lee); determine a type of the minimal risk maneuver based on the vehicle state information when the minimal risk maneuver is needed; and control the vehicle to stop based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver (Fig. 4, S465, S470 and S475 depict stop on shoulder or travel lane, ¶99, Lee), and wherein the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprises at least one among an immediate deceleration type and a limited autonomous driving type (Fig. 4, S470 and S475 depict vehicle stop which must cause the vehicle to immediately decelerate, and S455 depicts restrictive autonomous driving function is interpreted as limited autonomous driving type, ¶97, Lee).
Lee does not explicitly teach a minimal risk maneuver.
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, a minimal risk maneuver (minimal risk maneuvers-based autonomous driving where the vehicle control system stops the vehicle at a designated stopping location such as a shoulder or emergency parking area, see at least, ¶6, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches a minimal risk maneuver since they are both related to Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee teaches, a method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle, comprising: obtaining surrounding environment information by sensing surrounding environment of the vehicle during autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig. 3, sensing unit 270, see at least, ¶80-83, Lee); obtaining vehicle state information monitoring state of the vehicle during the autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig. 3, processor 170, monitors vehicle stat information and may continuously generate emergency travel routes during implementation of autonomous driving, see at least, ¶88-90, Lee); sensing whether a minimal risk maneuver is needed based on at least one among the surrounding environment information and the vehicle state information during the autonomous driving of the vehicle (Fig. 4, S410, upon determining a malfunction has occurred, may perform at least one operation in the flow chart, see at least, ¶92, Lee); determining a type of the minimal risk maneuver based on the vehicle state information when the minimal risk maneuver is needed (Fig. 4, S465, S470 and S475 depict stop on shoulder or travel lane, ¶99, Lee); and stopping the vehicle based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver, wherein the type of the minimal risk maneuver comprises at least one among an immediate deceleration type and a limited autonomous driving type (Fig. 4, S470 and S475 depict vehicle stop which must cause the vehicle to immediately decelerate, and S455 depicts restrictive autonomous driving function is interpreted as limited autonomous driving type, ¶97, Lee).
Lee does not explicitly teach a minimal risk maneuver.
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, a minimal risk maneuver (minimal risk maneuvers-based autonomous driving where the vehicle control system stops the vehicle at a designated stopping location such as a shoulder or emergency parking area, see at least, ¶6, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches a minimal risk maneuver since they are both related to Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Lee teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 1 (re-claim 2) and the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 14 (re-claim 15), wherein the vehicle state information represents whether functions needed for autonomous driving are possible to operate normally (the monitoring unit 521 can continuously monitor a state of the vehicle 10 and store a monitored state of the vehicle and determine whether the autonomous driving function malfunctions, and the processor 170 may determine whether semi-autonomous driving is available S615 see at least, ¶106 and 116, Lee), and wherein the functions needed for autonomous driving comprise at least one among a lane detection function, a lane change function, a lateral control function, a deceleration function, a powertrain control function, a safe area detection function, and an obstacle recognition and distance detection function.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the functions needed for autonomous driving comprise at least one among a lane detection function, a lane change function, a lateral control function, a deceleration function, a powertrain control function, a safe area detection function, and an obstacle recognition and distance detection function.
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, wherein the functions needed for autonomous driving comprise at least one among a lane detection function, a lane change function, a lateral control function, a deceleration function, a powertrain control function, a safe area detection function, and an obstacle recognition and distance detection function (Level 1 autonomous driving includes adaptive cruise control, lane keeping and the various devices required for level 1 autonomous driving is working normally like the external environment recognition device 6 and the vehicle sensors 7, see at least, ¶48-51, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Lee in view of Ishioka to further incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches wherein the functions needed for autonomous driving comprise at least one among a lane detection function, a lane change function, a lateral control function, a deceleration function, a powertrain control function, a safe area detection function, and an obstacle recognition and distance detection function since they are both related Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Regarding Claim 3 and 16, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to (re-claim 3) and the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 15, wherein the determining a type of the minimal risk maneuver based on the vehicle state information comprise (re-claim 16): determine whether at least one function among the functions needed for the autonomous driving is impossible to operate normally based on the vehicle state information (Fig. 4 depicts S410, S415 detects electronic device operating to implement autonomous driving function has malfunctioned, see at least, ¶89, Lee), and determine the immediate deceleration type to be the type of the minimum risk maneuver when at least one function among the functions needed for the autonomous driving is impossible to operate normally (Fig. 4 depicts S475 stop in travel lane is the immediate deceleration type, see at least, ¶92, Lee). .
Regarding Claim 8 and 18, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 3 (re-claim 8) and the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 16 (re-claim 18), further comprising: wherein the processor is configured to determine the limited autonomous driving type to be the type of the minimal risk maneuver when all the functions needed for the autonomous driving are possible to operate normally and the minimum risk maneuver is needed (Fig. 4 depicts S455, implement restrictive autonomous driving function Fig. 6 depicts S615 – semi-autonomous driving is available, see at least, ¶97, 113, Lee).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to limit at least one among a maximum speed of the vehicle and a maximum output power of the vehicle during the limited autonomous driving (restrictive autonomous driving function is defined as travel speed is restricted, see at least, ¶63, Lee).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: search a safe area, set the safe area as a destination, and move into the set destination through the limited autonomous driving when the limited autonomous driving type is determined (Fig. 6 depicts block S650 the processor determines if the vehicle can enter the shoulder of a road or rest area (safe area) and block S660c provides a control signal for causing the vehicle to move to a safety zone (safe area) and stop, see at least, ¶120, Lee) and wherein the limited autonomous driving has a limited condition on at least one among a maximum speed, a maximum output power, lane change, a traveling allowable time, and a traveling allowable distance (Fig. 6 depicts block S660c provides a control signal for causing the vehicle to maintain speed limit (maximum speed) and move to a safety zone and stop, see at least, ¶120, Lee).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 14, wherein the stopping the vehicle based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver comprises limiting at least one among a maximum speed of the vehicle, a maximum output power of the vehicle, a direction of lane change, a traveling allowable time, and a traveling allowable distance during the limited autonomous driving when the limited autonomous driving type is determined to be the type of the minimal risk maneuver (The processor 170 continuously generates emergency travel routes in units of predetermined distance to forward 1 km is interpreted as a traveling allowable distance and maintaining a speed limit, see at least, ¶89 and 120, Lee).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 19, wherein the stopping the vehicle based on the determined type of the minimal risk maneuver further comprises: searching a safe area and setting the safe area as a destination; and moving into the set destination through the limited autonomous driving (Fig. 6 depicts block S650 the processor determines if the vehicle can enter the shoulder of a road or rest area (safe area) and block S660c provides a control signal for causing the vehicle to move to a safety zone (safe area) and stop, see at least, ¶120, Lee).
Claims 4-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Taekyung et al. (US 20210269063 A1) in view of ISHIOKA ATSUYUKI et al. (JP 2020163986 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 and further in view of LUKE; Hok-Sum Horace et al. (US 20160167519 A1).
Regarding Claim 4 and 17, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 3 (re-claim 4) and the method for operating an autonomous driving vehicle of claim 16 (re-claim 17), wherein the immediate deceleration type comprises at least one among an emergency stop type of stopping the vehicle at a specified first deceleration; a gradual stop type of selecting one among a second deceleration and a third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration; and a gradual stop within lane type of selecting one among the second deceleration and the third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and maintaining to be in a lane while stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration, wherein the second deceleration is smaller than the first deceleration, and wherein the third deceleration is greater than the second deceleration and smaller than or equal to the first deceleration (gradually reduce the speed in a lane in which the vehicle is traveling and then stop S475, see at least, ¶100, Lee).
Lee and Ishioka does not explicitly teach emergency stop type of stopping the vehicle at a specified first deceleration; a gradual stop type of selecting one among a second deceleration and a third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration; and a gradual stop within lane type of selecting one among the second deceleration and the third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and maintaining to be in a lane while stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration, wherein the second deceleration is smaller than the first deceleration, and wherein the third deceleration is greater than the second deceleration and smaller than or equal to the first deceleration
Luke, directed to vehicular collision avoidance systems teaches, emergency stop type of stopping the vehicle at a specified first deceleration (third rate of deceleration represents an emergency stop, see at least, ¶45, Luke); a gradual stop type of selecting one among a second deceleration and a third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration (first and second rate of deceleration are gradual stops, see at least, ¶13, Luke); and a gradual stop within lane type of selecting one among the second deceleration and the third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and maintaining to be in a lane while stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration (select among a first and second rate of deceleration based on the determination of the distance to an object in the path of the vehicle, see at least, ¶13, Luke), wherein the second deceleration is smaller than the first deceleration, and wherein the third deceleration is greater than the second deceleration and smaller than or equal to the first deceleration (see at least, ¶42-45, Luke).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee and Ishioka to incorporate the teachings of Luke which teaches emergency stop type of stopping the vehicle at a specified first deceleration; a gradual stop type of selecting one among a second deceleration and a third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration; and a gradual stop within lane type of selecting one among the second deceleration and the third deceleration based on at least one among presence of an obstacle and a distance to the obstacle and maintaining to be in a lane while stopping the vehicle at the selected deceleration, wherein the second deceleration is smaller than the first deceleration, and wherein the third deceleration is greater than the second deceleration and smaller than or equal to the first deceleration since they are both related to autonomous vehicle safety systems and incorporation of the teachings of Luke would improve the appropriate level of deceleration to apply based on distance to an object to avoid a collision.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the emergency stop type to be the type of the minimal risk maneuver when the lane detection function, the lateral control function, the lane change function, the obstacle recognition and distance detection function are impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function operates normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving, and control the vehicle to be stopped at the first deceleration according to the emergency stop type.R1Claim (Fig. 4 depicts stopping the vehicle when one of the autonomous driving ECU has malfunctioned, see at least, ¶92, Lee).
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, the lane detection function, the lateral control function, the lane change function, the obstacle recognition and distance detection function are impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function operates normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving. (Level 1 autonomous driving requires adaptive cruise control, lane keeping and the various devices required for level 1 autonomous driving is working normally like the external environment recognition device 6 and the vehicle sensors 7, see at least, ¶48-51, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke to further incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches the lane detection function, the lateral control function, the lane change function, the obstacle recognition and distance detection function are impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function operates normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving since they are both related Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the gradual stop type to be the type of the minimal risk maneuver (Fig. 4 depicts block S475 gradually reduce the speed in a lane in which the vehicle is traveling and then stop, see at least, ¶100, 112, 120, Lee).
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, when the lane detection function, the lateral control function, the lane change function are impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function and the obstacle recognition and distance detection function operate normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving (Level 1 autonomous driving requires adaptive cruise control, lane keeping and the various devices like the external environment recognition device 6 and the vehicle sensors 7 working normally, see at least, ¶48-51, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke to further incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches when the lane detection function, the lateral control function, the lane change function are impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function and the obstacle recognition and distance detection function operate normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving since they are both related Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Luke, directed to vehicular collision avoidance systems teaches, detect the presence of an obstacle or the distance to the obstacle according to the gradual stop type, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration when there is no obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is greater than a specified threshold distance, and control the vehicle to be stopped at the third deceleration when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is smaller than or equal to a specified threshold distance (when the distance is less than a minimum regenerative stopping distance, the vehicle autonomously enters a second braking mode at a second rate and third braking mode when the obstacle is at a distance less than the minimum regenerative stopping distance, see at least, ¶42-45, Luke).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke to incorporate the teachings of Luke which teaches detect the presence of an obstacle or the distance to the obstacle according to the gradual stop type, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration when there is no obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is greater than a specified threshold distance, and control the vehicle to be stopped at the third deceleration when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is smaller than or equal to a specified threshold distance since they are both related to autonomous vehicle safety systems and incorporation of the teachings of Luke would improve the appropriate level of deceleration to apply based on distance to an object to avoid a collision.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the gradual stop within lane type to be the type of the minimal risk maneuver, according to the gradual stop within lane type, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration while maintaining to be in a lane in which the vehicle travels (Fig. 4 depicts block S475 gradually reduce the speed in a lane in which the vehicle is traveling and then stop, see at least, ¶100, 112, 120, Lee)
Ishioka, directed to a vehicle control system which can execute a lane change teaches, when the lane change function is impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function, the obstacle recognition and distance detection function, the lane detection function, and the lateral control function operate normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving (Level 1 autonomous driving requires adaptive cruise control, lane keeping and the various devices like the external environment recognition device 6 and the vehicle sensors 7 working normally, see at least, ¶48-51, Ishioka).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke to further incorporate the teachings of Ishioka which teaches when the lane change function is impossible to operate normally and the deceleration function, the obstacle recognition and distance detection function, the lane detection function, and the lateral control function operate normally among the functions needed for the autonomous driving since they are both related Autonomous driving control and incorporation of the teachings of Ishioka would increase the safety of the vehicle when the environment recognition device does not function properly (¶ 7, Ishioka).
Luke, directed to vehicular collision avoidance systems teaches detect the presence of an obstacle or the distance to the obstacle, when there is no obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration while maintaining to be in a lane in which the vehicle travels when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is greater than a specified threshold distance, and control the vehicle to be stopped at the third deceleration while maintaining to be in a lane in which the vehicle travels when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is smaller than or equal to a specified threshold distance (when the distance is less than a minimum regenerative stopping distance, the vehicle autonomously enters a second braking mode at a second rate and third braking mode when the obstacle is at a distance less than the minimum regenerative stopping distance, see at least, ¶42-45, Luke).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee in view of Ishioka and Luke to incorporate the teachings of Luke which detect the presence of an obstacle or the distance to the obstacle, when there is no obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, control the vehicle to be stopped at the second deceleration while maintaining to be in a lane in which the vehicle travels when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is greater than a specified threshold distance, and control the vehicle to be stopped at the third deceleration while maintaining to be in a lane in which the vehicle travels when there is an obstacle in a forward direction of the vehicle as a result of the detection, and the distance to the obstacle is smaller than or equal to a specified threshold distance since they are both related to autonomous vehicle safety systems and incorporation of the teachings of Luke would improve the appropriate level of deceleration to apply based on distance to an object to avoid a collision.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Taekyung et al. (US 20210269063 A1) in view of ISHIOKA ATSUYUKI et al. (JP 2020163986 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 and further in view of SAKAGUCHI; Eiji (US 20190126928 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to limit a lane change function during the limited autonomous driving (restrictive autonomous driving function is defined as lane change function is restricted, see at least, ¶63 and 97, Lee).
Lee in view of Ishioka does not explicitly teach limit a range of lane change and allows lane change only in a direction away from a center line during the limited autonomous driving.
Sakaguchi, directed to vehicle control device performing lane change control teaches, limit a range of lane change and allows lane change only in a direction away from a center line during the limited autonomous driving (lane change path is generated for reaching the middle position of the adjacent lane in the lane width direction from the middle position of the traveling lane, see at least, ¶35, Sakaguchi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee in view of Ishioka to incorporate the teachings of Sakaguchi which teaches limit a range of lane change and allows lane change only in a direction away from a center line during the limited autonomous driving since they are both related to autonomous vehicle control and incorporation of the teachings of Sakaguchi would improve occupancy comfort by suppressing significant deceleration during lane change control.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Taekyung et al. (US 20210269063 A1) in view of ISHIOKA ATSUYUKI et al. (JP 2020163986 A) as applied to claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 14-16, and 18-20 and further in view of Laur; Michael H. et al. (US 20180081358 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Ishioka teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 11, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one camera generating the surrounding environment information (the object detection device 210 may include a camera allowing the perception unit 520 to perceive a surrounding state of the vehicle, ¶103-105, Lee).
Lee and Ishioka does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to search the safe area based on information obtained from the at least one camera.
Laur, directed to a safe stop zone mapping system teaches, wherein the processor is configured to search the safe area based on information obtained from the at least one camera (Fig. 2 depicts safe-stop-zone 32 and the system 10 may include an image device such as a camera to determine if the safe-stop zone is available, see at least, ¶15, Laur).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee and Ishioka to incorporate the teachings of Laur which teaches wherein the processor is configured to search the safe area based on information obtained from the at least one camera since they are both related to Safety systems for autonomous vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Laur would increase safety of the autonomous vehicle by navigate a host-vehicle into a safe-stop-zone when an emergency-situation occurs (¶1, Laur).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE; Taekyung et al. (US 20210269063 A1) in view of ISHIOKA ATSUYUKI et al. (JP 2020163986 A) and Laur; Michael H. et al. (US 20180081358 A1) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of KOBAYASHI, SHOJI (WO 2010050095 A1) (English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Ishioka and Laur teaches, the autonomous driving vehicle of claim 12.
Lee, Ishioka and Laur does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to compare an image obtained from the at least one camera and a prestored image of a safe area and determines the safe area.
Kobyashi, directed to a headlight control device of an automobile teaches, wherein the processor is configured to compare an image obtained from the at least one camera and a prestored image of a safe area and determines the safe area (comparing image data distribution frequency components with a pre-stored image of the road surface, the shoulder position can be detected, see at least, Page 15 ¶2, Kobayashi).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Lee, Ishioka and Laur to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi which teaches wherein the processor is configured to compare an image obtained from the at least one camera and a prestored image of a safe area and determines the safe area since they are both related to vehicle controls and incorporation of the teachings of Kobayashi would improve diving safety (Page 11 Paragraph 2, Kobayashi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights