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
Claims 16-35 filed on 01/23/2025 have been examined. Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled by the applicant.
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 07/22/2026. Claims 16, 18, 23, 25, and 34-35 have been amended. Claims 1-15, 19-22, and 24 have been cancelled. Claims 36-40 are new claims that have been added to the claim set by the applicant. Claims 16-18, 23, and 25-40 are currently pending and addressed below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 6 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “Remarks”), filed 07/22/2026, with respect to Claim Objections to claims 16-17, 22, 26-28, 30-32, and 34 stating “… Claims 16-17, 26-28, 30-32, and 34 were objected to for reciting the British spelling "manoeuvring" rather than the American English "maneuvering." However, use of the British spelling is not improper and does not require correction. Examiners should not object to a specification or claims merely because Applicant has used British English spellings rather than American English spellings. See MPEP 608. Withdrawal of this objection is respectfully requested …” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner has withdrawn the Claim Objection to claims 16-17, 22, 26-28, 30-32, and 34.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 6 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation stating “… The Office Action interprets "control system" (claim 16) and "inference engine" (claim 27) as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Applicant respectfully traverses this interpretation. Neither claim term uses the word "means," giving rise to a presumption against § 112(f) treatment, and the Office Action does not identify a basis for overcoming that presumption. Applicant does not concede that the presumption is rebutted and reserves all arguments regarding the proper construction of these terms…” have been considered and are not persuasive.
The Examiner notes that Claim Interpretations are not claim rejections, however, as explained in MPEP § 2181, generic placeholders used for the recited claimed functions (i.e., “inference engine”) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the Examiner maintains Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 7 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 101 stating “… Claim 35 has been amended, consistent with the Examiner's suggestion in the Office Action. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested…” have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s accompanying amendments and arguments, on page 7 of the Applicant Remarks, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 16 and 34, and their corresponding dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 stating “… Claims 16, 20-21, 26, and 30-35 stand rejected as anticipated by Yasui. Yasui does not disclose a manoeuvring control configuration that is temporarily changed from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and that reverts to the default configuration once the trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy that condition, as now required by claim 16 (see also claim 34… Nothing in Yasui describes a temporary departure from a default configuration that automatically reverts once a trajectory-characteristic-based condition is no longer satisfied. For at least the foregoing reasons, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested…” have been considered but are moot due to the amendments and added limitations provided above. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Do et al. US 20250083666 A1 (“Do”).
Examiner note to help applicant overcome the art on record
Applicant may overcome the art on record by amending independent claims 16 and 34 to include the limitations from dependent claims 39 and 40 with the following further clarification included:
“… wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises changing wherein the controller speed
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“inference engine” provided in claim 27
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (item a):
Specification – “… FIG. 2 illustrates an example control system 200 configured to implement one or more aspects of the invention… The controller 201 of FIG. 2 includes at least one processor 204; and at least one memory device 206 electrically coupled to the electronic processor 204 and having instructions (e.g. a computer program 208) stored therein, the at least one memory device 206 and the instructions configured to, with the at least one processor 204, cause anyone or more of the methods described herein to be performed… as shown in FIG. 6, the control system 200 can implement an inference engine 600 (such as a classifier) configured to
classify/determine the driving situation”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 38 recites claim limitations “wherein the offset return condition comprises a second threshold, offset from the first threshold, and wherein the value of the one or more trajectory characteristics is required to cross the second threshold before the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration”. The present application specification does not describe, in sufficient detail, what algorithms, steps, or procedure perform the claimed function (i.e., the specification does not describe in sufficient detail an offset return condition comprising a second threshold, offset from a first threshold, and a trajectory characteristic value required to cross the second threshold for reverting to the default manoeuvering control configuration), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing, but has only described a desired result. Refer to MPEP §2161.01.
Claim 39 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 38.
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 37-39 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 37 currently recites:
“wherein the condition comprises a first threshold associated with the one or more trajectory characteristics, and wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy the condition when a value of the one or more trajectory characteristics crosses the first threshold”
The Examiner notes that the claim 37 limitation reciting “wherein the condition comprises a first threshold associated with the one or more trajectory characteristics…” is unclear because it is not made clear whether the claim is directed towards the condition previously recited in independent claim 16, or whether the claim is directed towards the offset return condition previously recited in claim 36 of which claim 37 also depends on.
Claims 38-39 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 37.
Examiner notes that, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has assumed that the condition recited in claim 37 pertains to the condition previously recited in claim 16.
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.
Claims 16, 18, 26, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui US 20210300348 A1 (“Yasui”) in view of Do et al. US 20250083666 A1 (“Do”).
For claim 16, Yasui discloses a control system for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (See at least [0041] – “… The vehicle system 1 includes… an automated driving control device … is an example of a vehicle control device…” and [0152] of Yasui – “… FIG. 18 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a flow of a series of processes performed by the automated driving control device … in a case where the driving mode is an automated driving mode…”), the control system comprising one or more controllers (See at least [0060] of Yasui – “… The automated driving control device 100 includes, for example, a first control unit 120, a second control unit 160, a third control unit 170… are each realized by a hardware processor such as, for example, a central processing unit …”), the control system configured to:
obtain information indicative of one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle (See at least [0161] of Yasui – “… the target trajectory generation unit 146 selects an optimum target trajectory TR … closest to a human trajectory TRh … compares the speed element (such as the speed v or the acceleration α) and the position element (such as the amount of displacement u of steering or the curvature κ of the trajectory) included in the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the plurality of models MDL with the speed element and the position element included in the human trajectory TRh…”); and
determine a manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics, wherein the manoeuvring control configuration is configured to control autonomous manoeuvring actuations of the vehicle associated with following the planned local trajectory (See at least [0161]-[0163] of Yasui – “… target trajectory generation unit 146 compares the speed element (such as the speed v or the acceleration α) and the position element (such as the amount of displacement u of steering or the curvature κ of the trajectory) included in the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the plurality of models MDL with the speed element and the position element included in the human trajectory TRh, and selects the target trajectory TR closest to the position element and the position element of the human trajectory TRh among the plurality of target trajectories TR as the optimum target trajectory TR… the second control unit 160 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the target trajectory TR which is output by the target trajectory generation unit 146… The automated driving control device 100 selects the optimum target trajectory TR from the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the rule-based model MDL1 and the DNN model MDL2. The automated driving control device 100 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the selected target trajectory TR… it is possible to smoothly control driving of the host vehicle …”).
Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the manoeuvring control configuration is temporarily changed from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the manoeuvring control configuration is temporarily changed from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition (See at least [0155]-[0186] of Do – “… the computer 140 switches from a nominal driving mode into an emergency driving mode… nominal driving mode is that one in which the vehicle is controlled either manually … or autonomously by an entity of the computer… case where it is driven in an autonomous mode will be herein considered… to determine whether to keep the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode or to switch it into an emergency driving mode in order to attempt to avoid a potentially dangerous obstacle… computer determines the initial trajectory … computer seeks to check whether two cumulative conditions are met… considers that there is a risk of collision if the probability of collision calculated … if at least one of the two cumulative conditions is not met… Otherwise, the emergency driving mode is activated… When the emergency driving mode is activated, it is necessary to repeatedly check whether it is appropriate to deactivate it… FIG. 6 shows … method that enables the computer 140 to determine, when the vehicle is in the emergency driving mode, whether it should switch back into the autonomous mode or remain in the emergency driving mode… if no potentially dangerous obstacle is on the reference trajectory … the vehicle automatically switches into the autonomous … driving mode…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the manoeuvring control configuration being temporarily changed from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
For claim 18, Yasui discloses wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics comprises at least one of orientation of the planned local trajectory, speed of the planned local trajectory, curvature of the planned local trajectory, or yaw angle of the planned local trajectory (See at least [0161] of Yasui – “… the target trajectory generation unit 146 selects an optimum target trajectory TR … closest to a human trajectory TRh … compares the speed element (such as the speed v or the acceleration α) and the position element (such as the amount of displacement u of steering or the curvature κ of the trajectory) included in the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the plurality of models MDL with the speed element and the position element included in the human trajectory TRh…”).
For claim 26, Yasui discloses wherein the planned local trajectory comprises a next planned manoeuvre or sequence of planned manoeuvres (See at least [0092]-[0102] of Yasui – “… The target trajectory generation unit 146 decides a target speed v and a target acceleration α for each predetermined sampling time … by intervals between sampling times and trajectory points … FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of the target trajectory TR which is output by the model MDL. As in the shown example, since the risk potential p around the preceding vehicle m1 becomes high, the target trajectory TR is generated so as to avoid this. As a result, the host vehicle M changes its lane to the adjacent lane partitioned by the partition lines LN2 and LN3 and passes the preceding vehicle m1…”), planned in dependence on information from one or more line-of-sight sensors of the vehicle (See at least [0064] of Yasui – “… The recognition unit 130 recognizes the peripheral situation or environment of the host vehicle M. For example, the recognition unit 130 recognizes an object which is located near the host vehicle M on the basis of information which is input from the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the LIDAR 14 through the object recognition device 16… The position of the object is recognized … and is used in control…”).
For claim 30, Yasui discloses wherein the manoeuvring control configuration comprises at least one of: a controller architecture (See at least [0163] of Yasui – “…The automated driving control device 100 inputs the risk area RA of the first range to the rule-based model MDL1, and inputs the risk area RA of the second range to the DNN model MDL2. The automated driving control device 100 selects the optimum target trajectory TR from the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the rule-based model MDL1 and the DNN model MDL2. The automated driving control device 100 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the selected target trajectory TR…”); a controller speed; a controller horizon; or one or more controller calibration parameters.
For claim 31, Yasui discloses wherein the controller architecture enables selection from any two or more of the following control schemes for controlling the autonomous manoeuvring actuations: a reactive control scheme (See at least [0123] of Yasui – “… The mode control unit 174 may control the driving mode on the basis of a detection signal which is input from the driving operator 80. For example, in the automated driving mode, in a case where the occupant operates a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal, or a brake pedal with an amount of operation exceeding a threshold, the mode control unit 174 may switch the driving mode to the manual driving mode…”); a predictive control scheme; a dynamic control scheme; or a kinematic control scheme (See at least [0129]-[0131] of Yasui – “… First, the recognition unit 130 recognizes an object on a road on which the host vehicle M is traveling… the mode control unit 174 determines whether a specified condition is satisfied (step S102). For example, in a case where the host vehicle M is traveling on a public highway, the mode control unit 174 determines that the specified condition is not satisfied, and switches the driving mode to the second automated driving mode or switches it to the first automated driving mode in which the level of automation is lower than that in the second automated driving mode… In a case where the driving mode is the second automated driving mode or the first automated driving mode in which the level of automation is lower than that in the second automated driving mode, the target trajectory generation unit 146 selects any one DNN model MDL2 from a model set in which one or a plurality of rule-based models MDL1 and one or a plurality of DNN models MDL2 are included (step S106). In other words, in a case where the automation level of an automated driving mode is lower than the automation level of the third automated driving mode, the target trajectory generation unit 146 selects the DNN model MDL2…”).
For claim 32, Yasui discloses wherein the autonomous manoeuvring actuations comprise one or more of steering, acceleration or braking (See at least [0162] of Yasui – “… the second control unit 160 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the target trajectory TR which is output by the target trajectory generation unit…”).
For claim 33, Yasui discloses a vehicle comprising the control system of claim 16 (See at least Abstract – “… Provided is a vehicle control device …” and [0019] of Yasui – “… FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a vehicle system in which a vehicle control device according to a first embodiment is used…”).
For claim 34, Yasui discloses a method of controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (See at least [0041] – “… The vehicle system 1 includes… an automated driving control device … is an example of a vehicle control device…” and [0152] of Yasui – “… FIG. 18 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a flow of a series of processes performed by the automated driving control device … in a case where the driving mode is an automated driving mode…”), the method comprising:
obtaining information indicative of one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle (See at least [0161] of Yasui – “… the target trajectory generation unit 146 selects an optimum target trajectory TR … closest to a human trajectory TRh … compares the speed element (such as the speed v or the acceleration α) and the position element (such as the amount of displacement u of steering or the curvature κ of the trajectory) included in the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the plurality of models MDL with the speed element and the position element included in the human trajectory TRh…”); and
determining a manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics, wherein the manoeuvring control configuration is configured to control autonomous manoeuvring actuations of the vehicle associated with following the planned local trajectory (See at least [0161]-[0163] of Yasui – “… target trajectory generation unit 146 compares the speed element (such as the speed v or the acceleration α) and the position element (such as the amount of displacement u of steering or the curvature κ of the trajectory) included in the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the plurality of models MDL with the speed element and the position element included in the human trajectory TRh, and selects the target trajectory TR closest to the position element and the position element of the human trajectory TRh among the plurality of target trajectories TR as the optimum target trajectory TR… the second control unit 160 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the target trajectory TR which is output by the target trajectory generation unit 146… The automated driving control device 100 selects the optimum target trajectory TR from the target trajectory TR which is output by each of the rule-based model MDL1 and the DNN model MDL2. The automated driving control device 100 controls at least one of the speed and steering of the host vehicle M on the basis of the selected target trajectory TR… it is possible to smoothly control driving of the host vehicle …”).
Yasui fails to specifically disclose temporarily changing the manoeuvring control configuration from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and reverting the manoeuvring control configuration to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches temporarily changing the manoeuvring control configuration from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and reverting the manoeuvring control configuration to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition (See at least [0155]-[0186] of Do – “… the computer 140 switches from a nominal driving mode into an emergency driving mode… nominal driving mode is that one in which the vehicle is controlled either manually … or autonomously by an entity of the computer… case where it is driven in an autonomous mode will be herein considered… to determine whether to keep the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode or to switch it into an emergency driving mode in order to attempt to avoid a potentially dangerous obstacle… computer determines the initial trajectory … computer seeks to check whether two cumulative conditions are met… considers that there is a risk of collision if the probability of collision calculated … if at least one of the two cumulative conditions is not met… Otherwise, the emergency driving mode is activated… When the emergency driving mode is activated, it is necessary to repeatedly check whether it is appropriate to deactivate it… FIG. 6 shows … method that enables the computer 140 to determine, when the vehicle is in the emergency driving mode, whether it should switch back into the autonomous mode or remain in the emergency driving mode… if no potentially dangerous obstacle is on the reference trajectory … the vehicle automatically switches into the autonomous … driving mode…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the manoeuvring control configuration being temporarily changed from a default manoeuvring control configuration for as long as the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy a condition, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration once the one or more trajectory characteristics no longer satisfy the condition as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
For claim 35, Yasui discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising software instructions that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method according to claim 34 (See at least [0060] of Yasui – “… The automated driving control device 100 includes, for example, a first control unit 120, a second control unit 160, a third control unit 170, and a storage unit 180. The first control unit 120, the second control unit 160, and the third control unit 170 are each realized by a hardware processor such as, for example, a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU) executing a program … software… program may be stored in a storage device … a non-transitory storage medium…”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ohmura et al. US 20210325197 A1 (“Ohmura”).
For claim 17, Yasui discloses wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics comprises information indicative of a tolerance of the planned local trajectory of the vehicle (See at least [0107] of Yasui – “… The processes of the speed control unit 164 and the steering control unit 166 are realized by, for example, a combination of feedforward control and feedback control… the steering control unit 166 executes a combination of feedforward control according to the curvature of a road in front of the host vehicle M and feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory TR…”).
Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the tolerance is dependent on a detected collision-free space, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration controls a spatial accuracy of the autonomous manoeuvring actuations in dependence on the tolerance.
However, Ohmura, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the tolerance is dependent on a detected collision-free space, and wherein the manoeuvring control configuration controls a spatial accuracy of the autonomous manoeuvring actuations in dependence on the tolerance (See at least [0101] of Ohmura – “… More specifically, the control target calculation section 10f receives various types of the information from the sensor/switch group, receives the target travel route R from the target travel route calculation section 10c, and receives the information on the peripheral target from the peripheral target detection section 10b. The control target calculation section 10f executes model prediction control to calculate the correction travel route Rc on the basis of these types of the information. The correction travel route Rc is optimized to reduce a deviation amount from the target travel route R while satisfying the constraint condition… avoidance of a collision with the peripheral target…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Ohmura teaches a vehicle control system that optimizes a correction of a travel route to reduce a deviation amount from a target route to avoid a collision with a peripheral target.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the tolerance being dependent on a detected collision-free space and the manoeuvring control configuration controlling a spatial accuracy of the autonomous manoeuvring actuations in dependence on the tolerance as taught by Ohmura, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to optimize a correction of a travel route to reduce a deviation amount from a target route and avoid a collision with a peripheral target as specified in at least [0101] of Ohmura.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lee US 9227632 B1 (“Lee”).
For claim 23, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on information indicative of a current dynamic state of the vehicle, and the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises one or more of yaw rate information indicative of a yaw rate of the vehicle or speed information indicative of a speed of the vehicle.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on information indicative of a current dynamic state of the vehicle (See at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee – “… The steering angle command signal δ.sub.cmd is then sent to a vehicle dynamics controller 48 that provides the steering control signal δ.sub.cmd to the vehicle steering system 28 on the vehicle 10… The state signals are sent to the path prediction processor 42 that will be able to predict the vehicle path for the next few instances in time based on that information. The path prediction processor 42 estimates the vehicle future path based on the current vehicle speed, yaw-rate and steering angle…”), and the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises one or more of yaw rate information indicative of a yaw rate of the vehicle or speed information indicative of a speed of the vehicle (See at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee – “… The steering angle command signal δ.sub.cmd is then sent to a vehicle dynamics controller 48 that provides the steering control signal δ.sub.cmd to the vehicle steering system 28 on the vehicle 10… The state signals are sent to the path prediction processor 42 that will be able to predict the vehicle path for the next few instances in time based on that information. The path prediction processor 42 estimates the vehicle future path based on the current vehicle speed, yaw-rate and steering angle…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Lee teaches an autonomous vehicle control system that determines a future vehicle path and steering control signal based on the current vehicle speed, yaw rate and steering angle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises speed information indicative of a speed of the vehicle as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a future vehicle path and steering control signal based on the current vehicle speed, yaw rate and steering angle as specified in at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee.
For claim 25, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on information indicative of a current dynamic state of the vehicle, and the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises one or more of:
vehicle positioning information indicative of a current position and/or orientation of the vehicle; or
steering angle information indicative of a current steerable wheel angle of the vehicle.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on information indicative of a current dynamic state of the vehicle (See at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee – “… The steering angle command signal δ.sub.cmd is then sent to a vehicle dynamics controller 48 that provides the steering control signal δ.sub.cmd to the vehicle steering system 28 on the vehicle 10… The state signals are sent to the path prediction processor 42 that will be able to predict the vehicle path for the next few instances in time based on that information. The path prediction processor 42 estimates the vehicle future path based on the current vehicle speed, yaw-rate and steering angle…”), and the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises one or more of:
vehicle positioning information indicative of a current position and/or orientation of the vehicle; or
steering angle information indicative of a current steerable wheel angle of the vehicle (See at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee – “… The steering angle command signal δ.sub.cmd is then sent to a vehicle dynamics controller 48 that provides the steering control signal δ.sub.cmd to the vehicle steering system 28 on the vehicle 10… The state signals are sent to the path prediction processor 42 that will be able to predict the vehicle path for the next few instances in time based on that information. The path prediction processor 42 estimates the vehicle future path based on the current vehicle speed, yaw-rate and steering angle…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Lee teaches an autonomous vehicle control system that determines a future vehicle path and steering control signal based on the current vehicle speed, yaw rate and steering angle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the information indicative of the current dynamic state of the vehicle comprises steering angle information indicative of a current steerable wheel angle of the vehicle as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a future vehicle path and steering control signal based on the current vehicle speed, yaw rate and steering angle as specified in at least Col. 3 line 66 through Col. 4 lines 1-16 of Lee.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Iwamoto et al. US 20200180657 A1 (“Iwamoto”).
For claim 27, Yasui fails to specifically disclose configured to determine, via an inference engine, a driving situation class of the vehicle in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics, wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics comprises determining the manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the determined driving situation class.
However, Iwamoto, in the same field of endeavor teaches configured to determine, via an inference engine, a driving situation class of the vehicle in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics, wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics comprises determining the manoeuvring control configuration in dependence on the determined driving situation class (See at least [0089]-[0094] of Iwamoto – “the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines whether or not the autonomous driving is in the normal driving situation based on the system confidence degree calculated from at least one of the … the travel state of the vehicle, and the trajectory of the vehicle. For example, if the system confidence degree is equal to or higher than a normal driving threshold value, the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines that the autonomous driving is in the normal driving situation. If the system confidence degree is lower than the normal driving threshold value, the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines that the autonomous driving is not in the normal driving situation… The normal driving situation determination unit 27 may determine whether or not the autonomous driving is in the normal driving situation based on the trajectory generated by the trajectory generation unit 24… If a difference between the upper limit speed and the lower limit speed in the trajectory within a certain distance is equal to or higher than a speed difference threshold value, the normal driving situation determination unit 27 may determine that the autonomous driving is not in the normal driving situation…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Iwamoto teaches an autonomous driving system for a vehicle that classifies autonomous driving situations based on characteristics of a trajectory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of determining a driving situation class of the vehicle in dependence on the one or more trajectory characteristics as taught by Iwamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to recognize driving situations for autonomous travelling of a vehicle as specified in at least [0089]-[0094] of Iwamoto.
For claim 28, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on a confidence bound on the determined driving situation class.
However, Iwamoto, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining the manoeuvring control configuration is further dependent on a confidence bound on the determined driving situation class (See at least [0089]-[0094] of Iwamoto – “the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines whether or not the autonomous driving is in the normal driving situation based on the system confidence degree calculated from at least one of the … the travel state of the vehicle, and the trajectory of the vehicle. For example, if the system confidence degree is equal to or higher than a normal driving threshold value, the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines that the autonomous driving is in the normal driving situation. If the system confidence degree is lower than the normal driving threshold value, the normal driving situation determination unit 27 determines that the autonomous driving is not in the normal driving situation…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Iwamoto teaches an autonomous driving system for a vehicle that classifies autonomous driving situations based on confidence degree.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of determining the manoeuvring control configuration being further dependent on a confidence bound on the determined driving situation class as taught by Iwamoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to recognize driving situations for autonomous travelling of a vehicle as specified in at least [0089]-[0094] of Iwamoto.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do and Iwamoto, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Frazzoli et al. US 20190064803 A1 (“Frazzoli”).
For claim 29, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the inference engine is configured to adapt to user feedback to modify decision boundaries between different driving situation classes.
However, Frazzoli, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the inference engine is configured to adapt to user feedback to modify decision boundaries between different driving situation classes (See at least [0092] of Frazzoli – “… the AV system with mixed-mode driving capabilities may permit or require a transition of its driving mode from one to another. The transition may be based on automatic detection, an occupant request, or a server command, or combinations of them. The flexibility of driving mode transition of an AV system offers more options for an AV system user and provides a more efficient usage of the AV system…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions, controls the vehicle speed and steering on the basis of trajectory characteristics included in a selected target trajectory, and also performs feedback control based on deviation from the target trajectory, while Frazzoli teaches an autonomous vehicle system that allows a user to request different driving modes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of the inference engine being configured to adapt to user feedback to modify decision boundaries between different driving situation classes as taught by Frazzoli, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the flexibility of driving mode transition of an autonomous vehicle system as specified in at least [0092] of Frazzoli.
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 20210339773 A1 (“Lee ‘773”).
For claim 36, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying an offset return condition.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying an offset return condition (See at least [0185]-[0194] of Do – “… if no potentially dangerous obstacle is on the reference trajectory T1 and if the lateral speed and the yaw rate of the motor vehicle 100 have been lower than predetermined thresholds for one second, the vehicle automatically switches into the autonomous … driving mode… being collision-free and the vehicle having been stable for more than one second, the control of the actuators return back to the autonomous driving mode…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists and a duration of time has passed after the risk has been identified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying an offset return condition as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
Furthermore, Yasui also fails to specifically disclose wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying hysteresis.
However, Lee ‘773, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying hysteresis (See at least [0101] of Lee ‘773 – “… When the first hysteresis timer expires, the device 200 may handover the right to control from the system to the human driver and may activate the manual driving mode …”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Lee ‘773 teaches an autonomous driving control system that switches driving modes by applying hysteresis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises applying hysteresis as taught by Lee ‘773, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to change a driving mode when a hysteresis timer expires as specified in at least [0101] of Lee ‘773.
For claim 37, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the condition comprises a first threshold associated with the one or more trajectory characteristics, and wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy the condition when a value of the one or more trajectory characteristics crosses the first threshold.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the condition comprises a first threshold associated with the one or more trajectory characteristics, and wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy the condition when a value of the one or more trajectory characteristics crosses the first threshold (See at least [0163]-[0177] of Do – “… the computer determines, while taking into account the obtained data D1 representative of the surroundings, whether there is a risk that the motor vehicle 100 collides with any obstacle… second condition is that a time to collision TTC with this obstacle is less than a determined time threshold… the emergency driving mode is activated… This driving mode is designed to remain activated for a predetermined duration…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists and a duration of time has passed after the risk has been identified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of wherein the condition comprises a first threshold associated with the one or more trajectory characteristics, and wherein the one or more trajectory characteristics satisfy the condition when a value of the one or more trajectory characteristics crosses the first threshold as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
For claim 38, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the offset return condition comprises a second threshold, offset from the first threshold, and wherein the value of the one or more trajectory characteristics is required to cross the second threshold before the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the offset return condition comprises a second threshold, offset from the first threshold, and wherein the value of the one or more trajectory characteristics is required to cross the second threshold before the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration (See at least [0163]-[0195] of Do – “… the computer determines, while taking into account the obtained data D1 representative of the surroundings, whether there is a risk that the motor vehicle 100 collides with any obstacle… second condition is that a time to collision TTC with this obstacle is less than a determined time threshold… the emergency driving mode is activated… This driving mode is designed to remain activated for a predetermined duration… the computer 140 to determine, when the vehicle is in the emergency driving mode, whether it should switch back into the autonomous mode or remain in the emergency driving mode… if no potentially dangerous obstacle is on the reference trajectory … if the lateral speed and the yaw rate of the motor vehicle 100 have been lower than predetermined thresholds for one second, the vehicle automatically switches into the autonomous … driving mode…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists and a duration of time has passed after the risk has been identified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of wherein the offset return condition comprises a second threshold, offset from the first threshold, and wherein the value of the one or more trajectory characteristics is required to cross the second threshold before the manoeuvring control configuration reverts to the default manoeuvring control configuration as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
For claim 39, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises changing at least one of a controller architecture, a controller speed, a controller horizon, or one or more controller calibration parameters from a value associated with the manoeuvring control configuration to a value associated with the default manoeuvring control configuration.
However, Do, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises changing at least one of a controller architecture, a controller speed, a controller horizon, or one or more controller calibration parameters from a value associated with the manoeuvring control configuration to a value associated with the default manoeuvring control configuration (See at least [0163]-[0195] of Do – “… the computer determines, while taking into account the obtained data D1 representative of the surroundings, whether there is a risk that the motor vehicle 100 collides with any obstacle… second condition is that a time to collision TTC with this obstacle is less than a determined time threshold… the emergency driving mode is activated… This driving mode is designed to remain activated for a predetermined duration… the computer 140 to determine, when the vehicle is in the emergency driving mode, whether it should switch back into the autonomous mode or remain in the emergency driving mode… if no potentially dangerous obstacle is on the reference trajectory … if the lateral speed and the yaw rate of the motor vehicle 100 have been lower than predetermined thresholds for one second, the vehicle automatically switches into the autonomous … driving mode… if either one of the aforementioned conditions is met, during a step E3, the computer 140 deactivates the emergency driving mode, which amounts to reactivating the autonomous or manual driving mode… Finally, at a time point t.sub.3 illustrated in FIG. 10, the trajectory T1′ being collision-free and the vehicle having been stable for more than one second, the control of the actuators return back to the autonomous driving mode… ”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Do teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that temporarily changes a driving mode for the autonomous vehicle from a nominal driving mode to an emergency driving mode for as long as a risk of collision exists on a planned trajectory and then switches the driving mode back to the nominal driving mode when a risk of collision no longer exists and a duration of time has passed after the risk has been identified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of wherein reverting to the default manoeuvring control configuration comprises changing at least one of a controller architecture, a controller speed, a controller horizon, or one or more controller calibration parameters from a value associated with the manoeuvring control configuration to a value associated with the default manoeuvring control configuration as taught by Do, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow planning of trajectories that minimize risk as specified in at least [0195] of Do.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui in view of Do, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kapsalis et al. US 12673721 B2 (“Kapsalis”).
For claim 40, Yasui fails to specifically disclose wherein the manoeuvring control configuration comprises a controller speed, wherein the controller speed comprises a frequency of calculations of a manoeuvring controller.
However, Kapsalis, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the manoeuvring control configuration comprises a controller speed, wherein the controller speed comprises a frequency of calculations of a manoeuvring controller (See at least Claim 5 of Kapsalis – “… wherein the steering system is configured to process commands delivered by the controller that is configured to control lateral movement at a frequency less than or equal to a maximum processing frequency… and a continuous model of the controller that is configured to control lateral movement, defining a discretized closed-loop system by discretizing the model of the continuous closed-loop system at a frequency less than or equal to the maximum processing frequency, and determining the virtual reference yaw rate via an optimization calculation…”). Thus, Yasui discloses a vehicle control device that executes automated driving control functions and determines manoeuvring control configurations based on the one or more trajectory characteristics associated with a planned local trajectory of the vehicle, while Kapsalis teaches a controller that controls a lateral movement of a vehicle at a specified speed comprising a frequency less than or equal to a maximum processing frequency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control system and method as disclosed in Yasui to include the feature of wherein the manoeuvring control configuration comprises a controller speed, wherein the controller speed comprises a frequency of calculations of a manoeuvring controller as taught by Kapsalis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a lateral movement of a vehicle at a frequency less than or equal to a maximum processing frequency as specified in at least Claim 5 of Kapsalis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
