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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 29 January 2025. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2020-003092, filed on 10 January 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 01/29/2025, 03/20/2025, 05/08/2025 and 02/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
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:
“other vehicle situation grasping unit” in claims 1-3 and 5-6;
The structure of the other vehicle situation grasping unit is not disclosed in the specification;
“autonomy level determination unit” in claims 1-3 and 4-6;
The structure of the autonomy level determination unit is not disclosed in the specification.
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 1-6 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 recites “other vehicle situation grasping unit configured to…”. The “other vehicle situation grasping unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the other vehicle situation grasping unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the other vehicle situation grasping unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the other vehicle situation grasping unit is, what the advantages of using an other vehicle situation grasping unit are and how the recited functions are performed by the other vehicle situation grasping unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of an other vehicle situation grasping unit.
Claims 1-3 and 4-6 recites “autonomy level determination unit configured to…”. The “autonomy level determination unit” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the autonomy level determination unit to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the autonomy level determination unit. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the autonomy level determination unit is, what the advantages of using an autonomy level determination unit are and how the recited functions are performed by the autonomy level determination unit, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of an autonomy level determination unit.
Claims 2, 4-6 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “which is one of the driving tasks…” further limits “when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel” OR “performance of eyes-off travel”. Similarly, it is not clear “which is another one of the driving tasks and in which…” further limits “...determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel” OR “transition to hands-off travel”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim has been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 3, 7 and 8 recite similar languages and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim limitation “other vehicle situation grasping unit” in claims 1-3 and 5-6 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification 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. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “autonomy level determination unit” in claims 1-3 and 4-6 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 or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification 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. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2, 4-6 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a storage medium (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 7 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 7 recites:
A storage medium storing a driving control program for a vehicle, the vehicle configured to implement an autonomous driving operation that enables to replace at least a part of a driving task of a driver, the driving control program configured to cause at least one processing unit to execute processing including
grasping presence or absence of an other vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane and in a merging assumption section in which the other vehicle is assumed to merge from the adjacent lane to a subject vehicle lane,
grasping a section length of the merging assumption section,
determining, according to presence or absence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in the merging assumption section, an autonomous driving level defining a range of the driving task to be replaced by the autonomous driving operation,
when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, determining whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation, and
determining whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to the hands-off travel according to the section length of the merging assumption section.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “grasping...”, “determining, according to…”, “when…determining…” and “determining whether…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A storage medium storing a driving control program for a vehicle, the vehicle configured to implement an autonomous driving operation that enables to replace at least a part of a driving task of a driver, the driving control program configured to cause at least one processing unit to execute processing including
grasping presence or absence of an other vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane and in a merging assumption section in which the other vehicle is assumed to merge from the adjacent lane to a subject vehicle lane,
grasping a section length of the merging assumption section,
determining, according to presence or absence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in the merging assumption section, an autonomous driving level defining a range of the driving task to be replaced by the autonomous driving operation,
when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, determining whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation, and
determining whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to the hands-off travel according to the section length of the merging assumption section.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “storage medium…” and “driving control program…” the examiner submits that these elements merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The “storage medium…” and “driving control program…” are merely generic computer elements, which do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional element of “the vehicle configured to implement an autonomous driving…” is no more than a conventional computer within a vehicle. The recited additional elements at most link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, while the recited steps were not used to actually control the vehicle.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 7 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a storage medium…of a vehicle…the vehicle…the driving control program…” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the recited computer components are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1 includes limitations analogous to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 3.
Claim 3 includes limitations analogous to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 8.
Claim 8 includes limitations analogous to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashiro (US20200180642) in view of Oba (US20200139992).
As to claim 1, Takashiro teaches a driving control device for a vehicle, the vehicle configured to implement an autonomous driving operation that enables to replace at least a part of a driving task of a driver, the driving control device comprising:
an other vehicle situation grasping unit configured to grasp presence or absence of an other vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane and in a merging assumption section in which the other vehicle is assumed to merge from the adjacent lane to a subject vehicle lane (see at least Takashiro para 0022: …external sensor includes at least one of a camera and a radar sensor…; para 0031: …acquires a merging destination non-host vehicle situation on the merging destination lane L2…; also see Fig. 2-3); and
an autonomy level determination unit configured to determine, according to the presence or absence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane, an autonomous driving level defining a range of the driving task to be replaced by the autonomous driving operation in the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0033-0035: …acquire an inter-vehicle distance between the non-host vehicles in the merging destination lane L2 based on the merging destination non host vehicle situation and may determine whether or not the host vehicle V is able to merge while keeping autonomous driving based on the acquired inter-vehicle distance…inter-vehicle distance between the non-host vehicles in the merging destination lane L2 based on the merging destination non host vehicle situation and may determine whether or not the host vehicle V is able to merge while keeping autonomous driving based on the acquired inter-vehicle distance…; also see Fig. 2-3), wherein
the other vehicle situation grasping unit is configured to grasp a section length of the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0018: merging section, para 0031-0032:…acquires a shape and an end position of the traveling lane L1 in the merging section…; also see para 0026, Fig. 2-3), and
the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to the hands-off travel according to the section length of the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0058: …the merging section is comparatively short…the degree of difficulty of merging…increased…the host vehicle is controlled through autonomous driving…).
Takashiro further teaches determining that the host vehicle V is not able to merge while keeping autonomous driving, the manual operation notice unit 14 gives the driver a notice that the driver of the host vehicle V needs to perform a manual operation to make the host vehicle (see at least para 0035).
Yet, Takashiro does not explicitly teach when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation.
Oba is directed to switching a driving mode from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode. Oba teaches …examples of switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode include switching from the autonomous driving mode at the autonomous level 4 to the autonomous driving mode with careful attention at the autonomous level 3 …since the driver intervenes in the driving operation if any in the autonomous driving mode with careful attention at the autonomous level 3 (see at least Oba para 0230-0239, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takashiro so as to include when determining that the other vehicle that is merging does not exist during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation in view of Oba et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method for switching autonomous mode of Oba can be used in Takashiro, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takashiro and Oba because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to control the autonomous vehicle in the mode that is suitable for the driving environment so as to improve the safety of the occupant.
As to claim 2, Takashiro in view of Oba teaches the driving control device according to claim 1.
Takashiro further teaches autonomous driving of the other vehicle, when the other vehicle exists in the adjacent lane (see at least Takashiro para 0031: non-host vehicle situation, para 0033: …determines whether or not the host vehicle during autonomous driving is able to merge…; Fig. 2-3), and
the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine the autonomous driving level according to the control situation of autonomous driving in the other vehicle (see at least Takashiro para 0034-0035:…acquire a relative speed of each non-host vehicle…determine whether or not the host vehicle is able to merge while keep autonomous driving…).
As to claim 3, Takashiro teaches a driving control device for a vehicle, the vehicle configured to implement an autonomous driving operation that enables to replace at least a part of a driving task of a driver, the driving control device comprising:
an other vehicle situation grasping unit configured to grasp a control situation of autonomous driving of an other vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane and in a merging assumption section in which the other vehicle is assumed to merge from the adjacent lane to a subject vehicle lane (see at least Takashiro para 0022: …external sensor includes at least one of a camera and a radar sensor…; para 0031: …acquires a merging destination non-host vehicle situation on the merging destination lane L2…; also see Fig. 2-3); and
an autonomy level determination unit configured to determine, according to the control situation of autonomous driving of the other vehicle, an autonomous driving level defining a range of the driving task to be replaced by the autonomous driving operation in the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0031-0035:…acquire a relative speed of each non-host vehicle…determine whether or not the host vehicle is able to merge while keep autonomous driving…) ,
wherein the other vehicle situation grasping unit is configured to grasp a section length of the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0018: merging section, para 0031-0032:…acquires a shape and an end position of the traveling lane L1 in the merging section…; also see para 0026, Fig. 2-3),
the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to the hands-off travel according to the section length of the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0058: …the merging section is comparatively short…the degree of difficulty of merging…increased…the host vehicle is controlled through autonomous driving…).
Takashiro further teaches determining that the host vehicle V is not able to merge while keeping autonomous driving, the manual operation notice unit 14 gives the driver a notice that the driver of the host vehicle V needs to perform a manual operation to make the host vehicle (see at least para 0035).
Yet, Takashiro does not explicitly teach when determining that the other vehicle that is merging is an autonomous driving vehicle during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation.
Oba is directed to switching a driving mode from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode. Oba teaches …examples of switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode include switching from the autonomous driving mode at the autonomous level 4 to the autonomous driving mode with careful attention at the autonomous level 3 …since the driver intervenes in the driving operation if any in the autonomous driving mode with careful attention at the autonomous level 3 (see at least Oba para 0230-0239, Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takashiro so as to include when determining that the other vehicle that is merging is an autonomous driving vehicle during performance of eyes-off travel, which is one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for periphery monitoring, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine whether to continue the eyes-off travel or whether to transition to hands-off travel, which is another one of the driving tasks and in which the driver is not responsible for steering operation in view of Oba et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method for switching autonomous mode of Oba can be used in Takashiro, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takashiro and Oba because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to control the autonomous vehicle in the mode that is suitable for the driving environment so as to improve the safety of the occupant.
As to claim 4, Takashiro in view of Oba teaches the driving control device according to claim 1.
Takashiro further teaches the autonomy level determination unit is configured to
continue the eyes-off travel, when the section length of the merging assumption section exceeds a continuation threshold, and transition to the hands-off travel, when the section length of the merging assumption section is less than the continuation threshold (see at least Takashiro para 0058: …the merging section is comparatively short…the degree of difficulty of merging…increased…, i.e. more driver attention required at shorter section lengths).
As to claim 5, Takashiro in view of Oba teaches the driving control device according to claim 1.
Takashiro further teaches the other vehicle situation grasping unit is configured to grasp presence or absence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in a merging preparation section positioned before the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0031: acquires…non-host vehicle situation on the merging destination lane…), and
when determining that the other vehicle does not exist in the merging preparation section under a situation in which the other vehicle situation grasping unit is capable of grasping presence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in the merging preparation section, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine not to perform avoidance travel control that is to avoid entry into the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0033-0034: … determines whether or not the host vehicle during autonomous driving is able to merge from the traveling lane into the merging destination lane while keeping autonomous driving based on the merging destination non-host vehicle situation acquired…determine whether or not the host vehicle is able to merge…; para 0023:detects obstacles surrounding the host vehicle…).
As to claim 6, Takashiro in view of Oba teaches the driving control device according to claim 1.
Takashiro further teaches the other vehicle situation grasping unit is configured to grasp presence or absence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in a merging preparation section positioned before the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0031: acquires…non-host vehicle situation on the merging destination lane…), and
even when determining that the other vehicle exists in the merging preparation section under a situation in which the other vehicle situation grasping unit is capable of grasping presence of the other vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane and in the merging preparation section, the autonomy level determination unit is configured to determine to perform avoidance travel control that is to avoid entry into the merging assumption section (see at least Takashiro para 0033-0034: … determines whether or not the host vehicle during autonomous driving is able to merge from the traveling lane into the merging destination lane while keeping autonomous driving based on the merging destination non-host vehicle situation acquired…acquire a relative speed of each non-host vehicle…determine whether or not the host vehicle is able to merge…; para 0023:detects obstacles surrounding the host vehicle…) .
As to claim 7, claim 7 an apparatus claim (storage medium) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (driving control device). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takashiro in combination with Oba.
As to claim 8, claim 8 an apparatus claim (storage medium) includes limitations analogous to claim 3, an apparatus claim (driving control device). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 3, claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takashiro in combination with Oba.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights