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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 should have descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: input unit configured to receive…; a unit for position determination configured to identify…; a control unit configured to: generate… in claims 8-20.
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.
Claim(s) 8-14 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. The specification does not appear to recite a control unit. The closest reference in the specification is an assistance system (2); however, the assistance system is recited in an earlier limitation of claim 8.
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 3-4, 8-14, 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 3 recites the limitation enabling the motor vehicle driving to adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle. However, it is unclear to which identified area is referred because the independent claim previously introduced an identified area. Claims 4 and 20 recite a similar limitation of an identified area and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “at least one assistance system” and “a control unit configured to: generate…”. The specification does not appear to recite a control unit but appears to describe the assistance system configured to generate steering instructions (see at least [0007]: assistance system generates steering instructions for a steering system to maintain the motor vehicle on a target trajectory). Accordingly, the limitations are unclear and it is unclear to whether the assistance system comprises a control unit.
Claim limitation “control unit configured to: generate…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not appear to recite a control unit. The closest reference in the specification is an assistance system (2); however, the assistance system is recited in an earlier limitation of claim 8. Therefore, the claims 8-14 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240010216 (Kume ‘216) in view of DE102021130174A1 (Doell) and US 20090299573 (Thrun).
As per claim(s) 1, 15, Kume ‘216 discloses a method for laterally guiding a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting driving lane boundaries using at least one surroundings sensor system and/or swarm data (see at least [0044]: periphery monitoring sensor 30 can detect lane markings Lr and Ll (see FIG. 4) of a road on which the subject vehicle Am travels, [0045]: periphery monitoring sensor 30 includes, for example, one or multiple camera units 31, millimeter wave radars 32, lidars 33, and sonars 34);
generating steering instructions for a steering system based on the detected driving lane boundaries to maintain the motor vehicle on a target trajectory (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a implements driving assistance functions of adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane trace control (LTC), and the like by executing programs by the processing unit. The driving assistance ECU 50a performs driving assistance control for causing the subject vehicle Am to travel along a traveling subject vehicle lane Lns by cooperation with the functions of the ACC and the LTC, [0066]: driving assistance ECU 50a and the automated driving ECU 50b normally control, to substantially a central portion of the subject vehicle lane Lns, [0067]: central portion serves as a reference position Pc when the offset control is performed);
enabling (see at least [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a performs offset control (see FIGS. 4 and 5) as one of the functions of the LTC);
generating steering instructions for the steering system based on the adapted target trajectory to maintain the motor vehicle on the adapted target trajectory (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a performs offset control (see FIGS. 4 and 5) as one of the functions of the LTC);
transitioning from the adapted target trajectory to the target trajectory based on shifting to the autonomous mode (see at least [0105]: continues the offset control until the switching from the driving assistance control to the autonomous traveling control by the control switching unit 78 is completed. As a result, the automated driving ECU 50b completes the shift of the control state in a state in which the offset control is continued, and returns the traveling position of the subject vehicle Am to the reference position Pc after the autonomous traveling control of congested time Level 3 is started);
transmitting corresponding steering instructions to the steering system to maintain the motor vehicle on the target trajectory (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0066]: driving assistance ECU 50a and the automated driving ECU 50b normally control, to substantially a central portion of the subject vehicle lane Lns, [0105]: returns the traveling position of the subject vehicle Am to the reference position Pc after the autonomous traveling control of congested time Level 3 is started).
Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose enabling a motor vehicle driver to adapt the target trajectory, resulting in an adapted target trajectory.
However, Thrun teaches enabling a motor vehicle driver to adapt the target trajectory, resulting in an adapted target trajectory (see at least [0006]: enable a vehicle to maintain a particular lateral offset relative to the direction of a road even in the absence of steering input, wherein a driver-initiated change in a steering angle induces a corresponding change in the vehicle's lateral offset to the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Thrun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide driver convenience to follow any trajectory parallel to the road. The combination would yield predictable results.
Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose identifying areas where the motor vehicle driving is permitted to remove their hands from a steering handle; detecting whether the motor vehicle driver has removed their hands from the steering handle using at least one sensor system; transitioning to a target trajectory based on the detection of hands-off driving within an identified area or upon entering identified area.
However, Doell teaches identifying areas where the motor vehicle driving is permitted to remove their hands from a steering handle (see at least page 2: determined on the basis of the map data (and on the basis of the position data) whether hands-off operation of the driving function is possible or not…it can be determined on the basis of the map data that the vehicle is located or will be located in a roadway section in which the driving function can be operated in hands-off mode);
detecting whether the motor vehicle driver has removed their hands from the steering handle using at least one sensor system (see at least page 3: hands-off operation of the driving function can be activated in response to it being recognized that the driver of the vehicle has removed both hands from the steering wheel of the vehicle. It can thus first be checked whether the prerequisite for the activation of the hands-off operation of the driving function is met. Furthermore, the driver of the vehicle may be shown that the hands-off operation of the driving function can be activated (when the driver takes his hands off the steering wheel). The actual activation of the hands-off operation of the driving function can then possibly only take place when it is recognized that the driver has actually taken his hands off the steering wheel, page 8: control unit 101 can be set up to determine on the basis of the sensor data of the one or more touch sensors 121, 122 of the steering wheel 110 whether the driver of the vehicle 100 touches the steering wheel 110 with at least one hand, touches it with two hands or does not touch it at all);
transitioning to a target trajectory based on the detection of hands-off driving within an identified area or upon entering identified area (see at least page 4: vehicle guidance system can be set up to determine whether the map data in relation to the roadway on which the vehicle is driving has a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables automated lane guidance within a lane of the roadway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase comfort and to provide a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables reliable automated lane guidance when located in a roadway section in which driving function can be operated in hands off mode. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim 8 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 8 is written below.
As per claim(s) 3, 10, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose enabling the motor vehicle driving to adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle.
However, Thrun teaches adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory (see at least [0006]: enable a vehicle to maintain a particular lateral offset relative to the direction of a road even in the absence of steering input, wherein a driver-initiated change in a steering angle induces a corresponding change in the vehicle's lateral offset to the road, [0026]: automated assistive steering (AAS) to maintain the offset, [0027]: Upon receiving a driver steering input signal, the system enters state 104 wherein the offset 116 is reset/modified, [0045]: steering input is also processed by processing arrangement 400, where it is added to the output of the steering controllers 403/405, to provide the driver with full steering control at all times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Thrun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide driver convenience to follow any trajectory parallel to the road. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Doell teaches enabling the motor vehicle driving to follow a trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle (see at least page 2: vehicle guidance system is set up to determine that a while the driving function is operated in a hands on mode Hands-off operation of the driving function is possible, page 4: vehicle guidance system can be set up to determine whether the map data in relation to the roadway on which the vehicle is driving has a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables automated lane guidance within a lane of the roadway, page 6: vehicle guidance system can be set up to check during the hands-on operation of the driving function, in particular repeatedly (e.g. at least once a second), whether the driver of the vehicle is touching the steering wheel of the vehicle with at least one hand or with both hands, page 8: control unit 101 can be set up to determine on the basis of the sensor data of the one or more touch sensors 121, 122 of the steering wheel 110 whether the driver of the vehicle 100 touches the steering wheel 110 with at least one hand, touches it with two hands or does not touch it at all, page 9: hands-off mode can then be activated automatically (without prior approval by the driver of the vehicle 100) so that the driver of the vehicle 100 is able to take their hands off the steering wheel 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase comfort and to provide a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables reliable automated lane guidance when located in a roadway section in which driving function can be operated in hands off mode. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 8, Kume ‘216 discloses a device for laterally guiding a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
at least one assistance system (see at least [0002]: automated driving control device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an automated driving control program, a presentation control device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a presentation control program, [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a);
at least one surroundings sensor system and/or access to a database of swarm data (see at least [0044]: periphery monitoring sensor 30 can detect lane markings Lr and Ll (see FIG. 4) of a road on which the subject vehicle Am travels, [0045]: periphery monitoring sensor 30 includes, for example, one or multiple camera units 31, millimeter wave radars 32, lidars 33, and sonars 34);
an input unit configured to receive an input (see at least [0054]: input unit…driver);
an adaptation to a target trajectory (see at least [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a performs offset control (see FIGS. 4 and 5) as one of the functions of the LTC);
a control unit (see at least [0002]: automated driving control device, [0017]: an automated driving control device includes: a control switching unit, [0050]: traveling control ECU 40 is an electronic control device mainly including a microcontroller);
generate steering instructions for a steering system to maintain the motor vehicle on a target trajectory based on data from the surroundings sensor system and/or swarm data (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a implements driving assistance functions of adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane trace control (LTC), and the like by executing programs by the processing unit. The driving assistance ECU 50a performs driving assistance control for causing the subject vehicle Am to travel along a traveling subject vehicle lane Lns by cooperation with the functions of the ACC and the LTC, [0066]: driving assistance ECU 50a and the automated driving ECU 50b normally control, to substantially a central portion of the subject vehicle lane Lns, [0067]: central portion serves as a reference position Pc when the offset control is performed);
generate steering instructions based on the adapted target trajectory to maintain the motor vehicle on the adapted target trajectory (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0065]: driving assistance ECU 50a performs offset control (see FIGS. 4 and 5) as one of the functions of the LTC);
transition from the adapted target trajectory to the target trajectory upon shifting to the autonomous mode (see at least [0105]: continues the offset control until the switching from the driving assistance control to the autonomous traveling control by the control switching unit 78 is completed. As a result, the automated driving ECU 50b completes the shift of the control state in a state in which the offset control is continued, and returns the traveling position of the subject vehicle Am to the reference position Pc after the autonomous traveling control of congested time Level 3 is started);
transmit corresponding steering instructions to the steering system to maintain the motor vehicle on the target trajectory (see at least [0050]: traveling control ECU 40…steering control ECU, [0066]: driving assistance ECU 50a and the automated driving ECU 50b normally control, to substantially a central portion of the subject vehicle lane Lns, [0105]: returns the traveling position of the subject vehicle Am to the reference position Pc after the autonomous traveling control of congested time Level 3 is started).
Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose an input unit configured to receive an adaptation to a target trajectory from the motor vehicle driver.
However, Thrun teaches an input unit configured to receive an adaptation to a target trajectory from the motor vehicle driver (see at least [0006]: enable a vehicle to maintain a particular lateral offset relative to the direction of a road even in the absence of steering input, wherein a driver-initiated change in a steering angle induces a corresponding change in the vehicle's lateral offset to the road, [0011]: system allows the driver to use the steering wheel to change lateral offsets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Thrun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide driver convenience to follow any trajectory parallel to the road. The combination would yield predictable results.
Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose a sensor system configured to detect whether a motor vehicle driver has removed their hands from a steering handle; a unit for position determination configured to identify areas where he motor vehicle driver is permitted to remove their hands from the steering handle; transitioning to a target trajectory upon detecting hands-off driving within an identified area or upon entering the identified area.
However, Doell teaches a sensor system configured to detect whether a motor vehicle driver has removed their hands from a steering handle (see at least page 8: control unit 101 can be set up to determine on the basis of the sensor data of the one or more touch sensors 121, 122 of the steering wheel 110 whether the driver of the vehicle 100 touches the steering wheel 110 with at least one hand, touches it with two hands or does not touch it at all);
a unit for position determination configured to identify areas where he motor vehicle driver is permitted to remove their hands from the steering handle (see at least page 2: determined on the basis of the map data (and on the basis of the position data) whether hands-off operation of the driving function is possible or not…it can be determined on the basis of the map data that the vehicle is located or will be located in a roadway section in which the driving function can be operated in hands-off mode);
transitioning to a target trajectory upon detecting hands-off driving within an identified area or upon entering the identified area (see at least page 3: hands-off operation of the driving function can be activated in response to it being recognized that the driver of the vehicle has removed both hands from the steering wheel of the vehicle. It can thus first be checked whether the prerequisite for the activation of the hands-off operation of the driving function is met. Furthermore, the driver of the vehicle may be shown that the hands-off operation of the driving function can be activated (when the driver takes his hands off the steering wheel). The actual activation of the hands-off operation of the driving function can then possibly only take place when it is recognized that the driver has actually taken his hands off the steering wheel, page 4: vehicle guidance system can be set up to determine whether the map data in relation to the roadway on which the vehicle is driving has a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables automated lane guidance within a lane of the roadway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase comfort and to provide a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables reliable automated lane guidance when located in a roadway section in which driving function can be operated in hands off mode. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 16, Kume ‘216 discloses wherein the surroundings sensor system includes at least one of a camera, radar, LIDAR, or ultrasonic sensor (see at least [0045]: periphery monitoring sensor 30 includes, for example, one or multiple camera units 31, millimeter wave radars 32, lidars 33, and sonars 34).
As per claim(s) 17, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose wherein the data related to areas where hands-off driving is permitted is stored in a digital map or retrieved from a remote server.
However, Doell teaches wherein the data related to areas where hands-off driving is permitted is stored in a digital map or retrieved from a remote server (see at least page 3: determined on the basis of the map data (and on the basis of the position data) whether hands-off operation of the driving function is possible or not.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase comfort and to provide a lane-specific desired trajectory that enables reliable automated lane guidance when located in a roadway section in which driving function can be operated in hands off mode. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 19, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose enabling the motor vehicle driving to adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle.
Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose enabling the motor vehicle driving to adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle.
However, Thrun teaches enabling the motor vehicle driving to adapt the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory while within an identified area, provided the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handle (see at least [0006]: enable a vehicle to maintain a particular lateral offset relative to the direction of a road even in the absence of steering input, wherein a driver-initiated change in a steering angle induces a corresponding change in the vehicle's lateral offset to the road, [0011]: system allows the driver to use the steering wheel to change lateral offsets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Thrun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide driver convenience to follow any trajectory parallel to the road. The combination would yield predictable results.
Further, Doell teaches detecting the motor vehicle driver has their hands on the steering handlw (see at least page 8: control unit 101 can be set up to determine on the basis of the sensor data of the one or more touch sensors 121, 122 of the steering wheel 110 whether the driver of the vehicle 100 touches the steering wheel 110 with at least one hand, touches it with two hands or does not touch it at all).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine whether the driver touches the steering wheel for providing reliable lane guidance. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume ‘216 in view of Doell and Thrun, and further in view of US 20200317196 (Yoshida).
As per claim(s) 2, 9, 18, Kume ‘216 discloses cancelling offset control but does not explicitly disclose wherein the adapted target trajectory is deleted after transitioning to the target trajectory.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein the adapted target trajectory is deleted after transitioning to the target trajectory (see at least [0100]: in a case where a target trajectory generated in a next processing period is acquired from the automatic driving control unit 120, the processing unit 165 discards a stored target trajectory of a previous processing period and stores the newly acquired target trajectory of the processing period in the first storage unit 166).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase processing efficiency. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume ‘216 in view of Doell and Thrun, and further in view of US 20240075963 (Kume ‘963).
As per claim(s) 5, 12, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose wherein, upon detecting hands-off driving outside an identified area, the adapted target trajectory is maintained, and the motor vehicle driver is prompted to place their hands back on the steering handle.
However, Thrun teaches the adapted target trajectory is maintained (see at least [0006]: enable a vehicle to maintain a particular lateral offset relative to the direction of a road even in the absence of steering input, wherein a driver-initiated change in a steering angle induces a corresponding change in the vehicle's lateral offset to the road, [0011]: system allows the driver to use the steering wheel to change lateral offsets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Thrun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide driver convenience to follow any trajectory parallel to the road. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Doell teaches detecting hands-off driving outside an identified area and a trajectory is maintained (see at least page 8: control unit 101 can be set up to determine on the basis of the sensor data of the one or more touch sensors 121, 122 of the steering wheel 110 whether the driver of the vehicle 100 touches the steering wheel 110 with at least one hand, touches it with two hands or does not touch it at all, page 8: control unit 101 (or a device) of vehicle 100 can be set up to operate one or more longitudinal and/or lateral guidance actuators 103 of the vehicle as a function of the environmental data in order to automatically longitudinally move vehicle 100 (as part of a driving function). and/or transverse (in particular according to SAE level 1, according to SAE level 2, according to SAE level 3 or higher).);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Doell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide safe driving assistance. The combination would yield predictable results.
Further, Kume ‘963 teaches wherein, upon detecting hands-off driving outside an identified area, a trajectory is maintained, and the motor vehicle driver is prompted to place their hands back on the steering handle (see at least [0151]: hands-off prohibited area…information on whether the hands-off control is possible in each country or region may be preliminarily recorded in the map data, or may be received by an in-vehicle communication device 39, [0152]: driving assistance ECU 50a to restrict the use of the hands-off control…When the subject vehicle Am travels in the hands-off prohibited area, the control switching section 78 cooperates with the driving assistance ECU 50a to restrict the use of the hands-off control. According to the restriction on the use of the hands-off control performed by the control switching section 78, the hands-on notification is issued when the driver continues to interrupt gripping of the steering wheel for a predetermined time or more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Kume ‘963 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide safe driving. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 6, 13, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose transitioning to the target trajectory and preparing for an emergency stop if the motor vehicle driver fails to place their hands on the steering handle within a predefined time.
However, Kume ‘963 teaches transitioning to the target trajectory and preparing for an emergency stop if the motor vehicle driver fails to place their hands on the steering handle within a predefined time (see at least [0151]: hands-off prohibited area…information on whether the hands-off control is possible in each country or region may be preliminarily recorded in the map data, or may be received by an in-vehicle communication device 39, [0152]: when the interruption of gripping of the steering wheel continues even after the hands-on notification is issued, travel control for automatically stopping the subject vehicle Am on a road on which the subject vehicle Am is traveling is started))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Kume ‘963 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve safety. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume ‘216 in view of Doell and Thrun, and further in view of US 20240393785 (Abrams).
As per claim(s) 7, 14, Kume ‘216 does not explicitly disclose wherein transitioning from the adapted target trajectory to the target trajectory occurs over a predefined time or distance to ensure a smooth transition.
However, Abrams teaches wherein transitioning from the adapted target trajectory to the target trajectory occurs over a predefined time or distance to ensure a smooth transition (see at least claim 1: determining, by the one or more processors, a maximum duration during which a lane change transition between the first lane and a second lane different from the first lane can be completed based on a speed limit associated with at least one of the first and second lanes, claim 2: wherein the maximum duration corresponds to a value relating to a comfortable lane change experience for a passenger of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kume ‘216 by incorporating the teachings of Abrams with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a comfortable experience for a passenger of a vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 11, 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Doell and Kume ‘963 teach identified hands-off areas; however, the prior art taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole: wherein the adaptation of the target trajectory or the adapted target trajectory within an identified area differs in at least one parameter from the adaptation process outside the identified area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040262063 (Kaufmann) (see at least [0019]: when the driver inputs a torque greater than about 0.25 Nm, the lane keeping system 100 transitions to the helper (assist) mode. When the driver has completed his correction the lane keeping system 100 transitions back to autonomous mode when the driver is within 0.5 meters of the lane center, for a duration of 5 seconds, when both of these conditions have been met the lane keeping system transitions back to the autonomous mode.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668