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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 22, 2026. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In response to applicant's amendments, claims rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby withdrawn.
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fear US2022/0155093 (“Fear”) in view of Ichikawa et al. US2017/0261981 (“Ichikawa”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 8, 9. Fear discloses a automatic control device comprising:
a processor configured to determine whether a driver has requested to carry out automatic control for a vehicle action or the driver has requested to carry out manual control for the vehicle action, based on a operation information associated with the vehicle action and representing operation of a first operating device by the driver ([0064] FIG. 6A is an illustration of an example autonomous vehicle 600, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. The autonomous vehicle 600 (alternatively referred to herein as the “vehicle 600”) may include, without limitation, a passenger vehicle, such as a car, a truck, a bus, a first responder vehicle, a shuttle, an electric or motorized bicycle, a motorcycle, a fire truck, a police vehicle, an ambulance, a boat, a construction vehicle, an underwater craft, a drone, and/or another type of vehicle (e.g., that is unmanned and/or that accommodates one or more passengers). Autonomous vehicles are generally described in terms of automation levels, defined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),), and
one or more from among action information representing a predetermined driver action by the driver, environment information representing a predetermined environment around the vehicle and a vehicle navigation route (fig. 3A and [0051-0054] In operation, the projected gaze direction 308B may be mapped to the map 320 (which may correspond to map 106 of FIG. 1), which includes waypoint 304B. The POI determination system 110 may then determine that projection 308B overlaps with waypoint 304B. In some embodiments, an occupant of vehicle 600 may perform a trigger action (e.g., a gesture, a voice command, button actuation, and/or another trigger action) while the projection 308B overlaps with the waypoint 304B to store the waypoint 304B, and associated information, in the POI log 120. Additionally and/or alternatively, according to embodiments discussed herein, waypoint 304B may be stored in the POI log 120 based on the projection 308B overlapping with billboard 304A for a threshold amount of time.)
Fear does not explicitly disclose carry out the automatic control responsive to the automatic control being requested; and allow the manual control responsive to the manual control being requested.
Ichikawa teaches another automatic vehicle control system and method that automatic control responsive to the automatic control being requested; and allow the manual control responsive to the manual control being requested ([0036] FIG. 3 is a flowchart for explaining procedures such as a judgment conducted by a judgement portion 16b of the autonomous driving control unit according to the first embodiment of the present invention. [0124] In Step S102, the ECU 10 (see FIG. 1) then determines whether or not there is an operation by the driver (more specifically, an operation by the driver that interferes with the autonomous driving control), based on the amount of operation by the driver (the amount of operation may include the steering workload described above) detected by the internal sensor unit 3 (see FIG. 1), for example. If the result of the determination is affirmative, the routine proceeds to Step S103. If the result of the determination negative, the routine proceeds to Step S107.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Fear by incorporating the applied teaching of allowing the driver to override the autonomous control as taught by Ichikawa to improve vehicle responsiveness and improve the ease of the operation to engage the autonomous driving control.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the action information comprises driver operation of a second operating device different from the first operating device, orientation of a face of the driver in a predetermined direction, and driver vocalization ([0060] The method 500, at block 504, includes generating, based at least in part on second sensor data generated using at least one internal sensor of a vehicle, a virtual representation of a gaze direction of an occupant of the vehicle. For example, an eye tracker may use sensor data from one or more in-cabin cameras, NIR cameras, or sensors, and/or other eye-tracking sensor types to determine the user's gaze direction relative to the vehicle 600.).
Regarding claim(s) 3. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the driver has requested to carry out automatic control of the vehicle action or the driver has requested to carry out manual control of the vehicle action, based on order of generation of the operation information and generation of the action information ([0070] One or more of the controller(s) 636 may receive inputs (e.g., represented by input data) from an instrument cluster 632 of the vehicle 600 and provide outputs (e.g., represented by output data, display data, etc.) via a human-machine interface (HMI) display 634, an audible annunciator, a loudspeaker, and/or via other components of the vehicle 600.).
Regarding claim(s) 4. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the first operating device is a turn signal operation device that inputs a direction of a lane change by the vehicle and the vehicle action is the lane change associated with the turn signal operation device, and the processor is further configured to determine that the driver has requested to carry out manual control of the vehicle action when the direction of the lane change of the vehicle represented by the operation information matches the orientation of the face of the driver represented by the action information ([0155] BSW systems detects and warn the driver of vehicles in an automobile's blind spot. BSW systems may provide a visual, audible, and/or tactile alert to indicate that merging or changing lanes is unsafe. The system may provide an additional warning when the driver uses a turn signal. BSW systems may use rear-side facing camera(s) and/or RADAR sensor(s) 660, coupled to a dedicated processor, DSP, FPGA, and/or ASIC, that is electrically coupled to driver feedback, such as a display, speaker, and/or vibrating component.)
Regarding claim(s) 5. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the environment information represents another vehicle around the vehicle ([0150] CACC uses information from other vehicles that may be received via the network interface 624 and/or the wireless antenna(s) 626 from other vehicles via a wireless link, or indirectly, over a network connection (e.g., over the Internet). Direct links may be provided by a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication link, while indirect links may be infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) communication link. In general, the V2V communication concept provides information about the immediately preceding vehicles (e.g., vehicles immediately ahead of and in the same lane as the vehicle 600),).
Regarding claim(s) 6. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the first operating device is a turn signal operation device that inputs a direction of a lane change by the vehicle and the vehicle action is the lane change associated with the turn signal operation device, and the processor is further configured to determine that the driver has requested to carry out automatic control of the vehicle action when the environment information shows that another vehicle is located in the direction of the lane change of the vehicle represented by the operation information ()[0149] The ACC systems may use RADAR sensor(s) 660, LIDAR sensor(s) 664, and/or a camera(s). The ACC systems may include longitudinal ACC and/or lateral ACC. Longitudinal ACC monitors and controls the distance to the vehicle immediately ahead of the vehicle 600 and automatically adjust the vehicle speed to maintain a safe distance from vehicles ahead. Lateral ACC performs distance keeping, and advises the vehicle 600 to change lanes when necessary. Lateral ACC is related to other ADAS applications such as LCA and CWS..
Regarding claim(s) 7. Fear in view of Ichikawa further discloses wherein the first operating device is a turn signal operation device that inputs a direction of a lane change by the vehicle and the vehicle action is the lane change associated with the turn signal operation device, and the processor is further configured to determine that the driver has requested to carry out manual control of the vehicle action when the direction of the lane change of the vehicle, represented by the operation information, is different from the moving direction of the vehicle toward the destination location of the vehicle, represented in the navigation route ([0066] A steering system 654, which may include a steering wheel, may be used to steer the vehicle 600 (e.g., along a desired path or route) when the propulsion system 650 is operating (e.g., when the vehicle is in motion). The steering system 654 may receive signals from a steering actuator 656. The steering wheel may be optional for full automation (Level 5) functionality.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights