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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the IDS filed 3/31/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 3, and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,805. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Lui ‘805 teaches: A method comprising:
determining a first parameter set corresponding to an operational design domain (ODD) of an automated driving system on a target road section, wherein the ODD is a design operating range required for normal operation of the automated driving system on the target road section; and (See Lui ‘805, claim 1)
obtaining a second parameter set of the automated driving system on the target road section; and (See Lui ‘805, claim 1)
determining, when the second parameter set does not meet the ODD, that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD of the automated driving system; and (See Lui ‘805, claim 1)
executing a control strategy of a vehicle in response to determining that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD. (See Lui ‘805, claim 1, for reducing speed, stopping, or requesting driver takeover)
Regarding claim 3, Lui ‘805 teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first parameter set comprises one or more first objects that are preset, wherein the second parameter set comprises one or more second objects, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, when the second parameter set is the same as the first parameter set, and when a value corresponding to a second object in the second parameter set is not within a value range of a corresponding first object in the first parameter set, that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD. (See Lui ‘805, claim 3)
Regarding claim 5, Lui ‘805 teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving ODD indication information from a roadside unit or a cloud platform; and
determining one or more parameters of the second parameter set based on the ODD indication information. (See Lui ‘805, claim 5)
Regarding claim 7, Lui ‘805 teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining the second parameter set from a sensor of the vehicle, a roadside unit, or a cloud platform. (See Lui ‘805, claim 6)
Regarding claim 8, Lui ‘805 teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the control strategy comprises at least one of reducing a speed of the vehicle, requesting a driver of the vehicle take over, or stopping the vehicle. (See Lui ‘805, claim 1)
Regarding claims 9, 11, 13 and 15-16, the claims are directed to an apparatus for performing the method of claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-8 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 17, 19-20 and 22, the claims are directed to a computer program for performing the method of claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kindo (US 20180290652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kindo teaches: A method comprising:
determining a first parameter set corresponding to an operational design domain (ODD) of an automated driving system on a target road section, wherein the ODD is a design operating range required for normal operation of the automated driving system on the target road section; and (See Kindo [0006] for determining whether an automatic driving system (ADS) is within the operational design domain. See [0038] for traffic rule map which includes restrictions related to vehicle speed and position)
obtaining a second parameter set of the automated driving system on the target road section; and (See Kindo [0030]-[0036] for internal and external sensors for detecting the environment, other objects, and the state of the vehicle)
determining, when the second parameter set does not meet the ODD, that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD of the automated driving system; and (See Kindo Fig. 3 and [0084]-[0091] for the comparison of detectable distance (second parameter set) to a required detection distance (first parameter set) to determine whether the vehicle is within the ODD of the ADS)
executing a control strategy of a vehicle in response to determining that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD. (See Kindo [0091] for determining that the ADS is out of the ODD and reducing the vehicle speed in order to be inside the ODD again)
Regarding claim 3, Kindo teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first parameter set comprises one or more first objects that are preset, wherein the second parameter set comprises one or more second objects, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, when the second parameter set is the same as the first parameter set, and when a value corresponding to a second object in the second parameter set is not within a value range of a corresponding first object in the first parameter set, that the automated driving system exceeds the ODD. (See Kindo [0006] for detection of a moving object via an object sensor, calculation of a detectable distance, and determination of whether the vehicle is within the ODD based on comparison of the detectable distance to a required detection distance.)
Regarding claim 7, Kindo teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining the second parameter set from a sensor of the vehicle, a roadside unit, or a cloud platform. (See Kindo [0006], [0030]-[0036] for internal and external sensors)
Regarding claim 8, Kindo teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the control strategy comprises at least one of reducing a speed of the vehicle, requesting a driver of the vehicle take over, or stopping the vehicle. (See Kindo [0091] for determining that the ADS is out of the ODD and reducing the vehicle speed in order to be inside the ODD again)
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 15-16, the claims are directed to an apparatus for performing the method of claims 1, 3, and 7-8 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 17, 19 and 22, the claims are directed to a computer program for performing the method of claims 1, 3, and 7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindo (US 20180290652 A1) in view of Jonsson et al. (US 20210149395 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kindo teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Kindo does not explicitly teach:
receiving ODD indication information from a roadside unit or a cloud platform; and
determining one or more parameters of the second parameter set based on the ODD indication information.
However, Jonsson teaches an autonomous driving system which determines its ODD based on data regarding road characteristics (See Jonsson [0010]) comprising receiving, from a roadside unit or cloud platform, ODD indicating information; and determining, based on the ODD indication information, at least one element of the second parameter set. (See Jonsson [0070]-[0074] where the vehicle may be connected to external networks. See [0071] where the described methods may be performed in part or in whole in a cloud or distributed cloud computing system. See [0074] where, for example, sensor data may be sent to an external system and the remote system determines whether the ODD is satisfied.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the OOD determining method of Kindo to incorporate the remote network and cloud system communication of Jonsson in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of ODD determinations and ease of updating parameters.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the claims are respectively directed to an apparatus and computer program for performing the method of claim 5 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindo (US 20180290652 A1) in view of Jonsson et al. (US 20210149395 A1) and Bin-Nun (US 20190163185 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Kindo in view of Jonsson teaches: The method of claim 5,
Kindo in view of Jonsson does not explicitly teach: wherein the ODD indication information comprises ODD level information.
Examiner notes that “ODD level” and “ODD level information” do not appear to be commonly used terms of art and is therefore evaluating this claim in light of the description provided in paragraphs [0119]-[0130] and Table 1 of the specification. Specifically, it corresponds to information regarding the type of road and expected traffic situation.
Jonsson is directed to determination of traffic barriers, which are indirectly indicative of a type of road (urban roads being less likely to have barriers to prevent the intermingling of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, for example) but does not teach this explicitly.
However, Bin-Nun teaches road-type data as part of ODD determination (See Bin-Nun [0049] for road times including urban, rural, highway) and expected encounters with pedestrian traffic (See [0059]-[0062] for adjusting expected frequency of “close approach” to pedestrians and other objects depending on location, with higher rates expected in higher density situations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to further modify the method of Kindo in view of Jonsson to incorporate the road-type data and density information of Bin-Nun as part of the ODD in order to allow the vehicle to safely operate in different traffic environments.
Regarding claims 14 and 21, the claims are respectively directed to an apparatus and computer program for performing the method of claim 6 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights