Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 12/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu. et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0065919)
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claim 10
Yu discloses “An apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: at least one sensor;” (See Yu [0029]-[0031] disclosing a sensor unit.).
Yu discloses “a controller configured to control operation of the vehicle; a processor configured to be electrically coupled to the at least one sensor and the controller,” (See Yu [0040] and Fig. 1, Chars. 160, 110, and 150 disclosing a DCU coupled to a controller and the sensor unit.).
Yu discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to: identify, based on a condition for a minimal risk maneuver being satisfied, a minimal risk maneuver type;” (See Yu [0110] disclosing determining a minimal risk maneuver type.).
Yu discloses “set, based on the identified minimal risk maneuver type, an allowance space in which the vehicle is able to stop;” (See Yu [0013] & [0112] disclosing requesting a safety zone based on the minimal risk maneuver type.).
Yu discloses “output a signal associated with the allowance space;” (See Yu [00112]-[0114] disclosing requesting a safety zone, thus outputting a signal associated with the allowance space (safety zone). Also see Yu [0141] disclosing a control center may output information on the safe zone along with a remote stop instruction.).
Yu discloses “and control, based on the signal, autonomous driving of the vehicle such that the vehicle stops within the allowance space.” (See Yu [0140]-[0141] disclosing the driving system performing the stop type in a safe zone when the control center provides the information and instructions.).
Regarding claim 2 and similarly with respect to claim 11
Yu discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: for the minimal risk maneuver, select, based on the identified minimal risk maneuver type, one stop type among a stop within lane type, a shoulder stop type, or a straight stop type.” (See Yu [0051] disclosing the selected minimal risk maneuver types may include a straight stop, in-lane stop, and adjacent lane stop.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3 and similarly with respect to claim 12
The recitation “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to, based on the straight stop type being selected: estimate a stopping available distance, a collision risk distance, and a lane departure distance; determine a smallest distance among the estimated stopping available distance, the estimated collision risk distance, and the estimated lane departure distance, wherein the smallest distance is a longitudinal allowable distance; and set, based on the longitudinal allowable distance, the allowance space.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art Yu. et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0065919). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to setting the allowance space or a safety zone based on a minimum longitudinal allowable distance among the specific group of a stopping available distance, a collision risk distance, and a lane departure distance, when a straight stop type is selected. For example, Yu [0051] discloses the determined stopping type may include a straight stop type, and [0121] discloses minimization of the impact of the maneuver on traffic flow to reduce potential accidents, however setting the allowance space or a safety zone based on a minimum longitudinal allowable distance among the specific group of a stopping available distance, a collision risk distance, and a lane departure distance, is neither disclosed by or rendered reasonably obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fei et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0174115) discloses precautionary planning of minimal risk maneuvers, including determining a remaining distance to an upcoming operational design domain such as when an autonomous driving mode is planned to end and an assessment of when a remaining distance is shorter than a predeterminable distance, see Abstract, Fig. 4, and [0014].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656