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 .
The current application relates to PCT/CN2023/107907 filed Jul. 18, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 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 1 recites “wherein the first braking strategy and the second braking strategy apply different braking forces to the autonomous operation device” is not understood cause the braking strategies are not physical device. Examiner suggests the passage should be changed to -- wherein the first braking strategy and the second braking strategy are different braking forces which are applied to the autonomous operation device --.
Claim 3, recites “the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 2” is unclear cause claim 2 is a cancel claim.
Claims 4-18 depend upon rejected claim above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle (20200130662).
With regard to claim 1, Buerkle discloses a brake control method for an autonomous operation device (an autonomous vehicle includes a system for controlling braking, see the abstract), comprising:
detecting that braking of the autonomous operation device is triggered (detecting a braking situation is about started based on the cameras and/or distance sensors indicated a proximate object, see [0093]+);
determining an event type for triggering the braking of the autonomous operation device as a first event type or a second event type (determining a classification of the braking situation, see [0094]+);
if the event type for triggering the braking of the autonomous operation device is the first event type, controlling the autonomous operation device to execute a first braking strategy; and if the event type for triggering the braking of the autonomous operation device is the second event type, controlling the autonomous operation device to execute a second braking strategy; wherein the first braking strategy and the second braking strategy apply different braking forces to the autonomous operation device (a control system applies decelerations based on the selected braking profile to maintain a safety distance, wherein the braking profile includes a comfort braking, an average braking, and etc. accordingly safety distances and braking accelerations see [0094]-[0095]+) ;
when the autonomous operation device is in a return state, if the braking of the autonomous operation device is detected to be triggered, controlling the autonomous operation device to execute the first braking strategy (the control system determines whether a braking situation is a normal braking situation, the control system selecta normal braking profile for normal driving situation, see [0094]-[0095]+). Wherein the normal driving situation is equivalent “a return state”);
when the autonomous operation device is not in the return state, if the braking of the autonomous operation device is detected to be triggered, proceeding to the step of determining the event type for triggering the braking of the autonomous operation device as the first event type or the second event type (the control system determines whether a braking situation is an emergency braking situation, the control system selecta an emergency braking profile for emergency situation, see [0094]-[0095]+). wherein the emergency situation is equivalent “not in a return state”.
Although Buerkle’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets (an autonomous vehicle includes a system for controlling braking based on the normal situation and the emergency situation corresponding the normal braking profile and the emergency braking profile as pointed out above are equivalent as the scope of the claim. For this reason, Buerkle is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 4-8, Buerkle teaches that the autonomous vehicle’s control system applies a deceleration based on the selected braking profile to maintain a safety distance based on the selected braking profile, may change form the normal braking profile to the emergency braking profile when the braking situation is classified as the emergency braking situation, and with examples 1-18, see [0096]-[0115] that meets the scope of the claims.
With regard to claim 9, Buerkle teaches that the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 1, wherein the braking force is applied to the autonomous operation device under the first braking strategy to generate a first deceleration for the autonomous operation device, the braking force is applied to the autonomous operation device under the second braking strategy to generate a second deceleration for the autonomous operation device, and an absolute value of the first deceleration is greater than an absolute value of the second deceleration (Fig. 2 illustrates a range of deceleration values for standard braking maneuver and emergency braking maneuvers).
With regard to claim 10, Buerkle teaches that the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 1, wherein braking modes employed by the first braking strategy and the second braking strategy comprise one or a combination of active electronic braking, passive electronic braking, active mechanical braking, and passive friction braking (the autonomous vehicle includes a braking system similar to a braking system of a conventional automobile, wherein the braking system includes one or more processor controlling a disc-brake of each wheel of the automobile, see [0037]+.
With regard to claim 11, Buerkle teaches that the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 1, wherein a braking mode of the first braking strategy is active electronic braking, and a braking mode employed by the second braking strategy is passive friction braking (The autonomous vehicle provides some autonomous functionality such as autonomous speed control, emergency braking control or the human operator performs, The braking system includes processors controlling a disc-brake of each wheel of the automobile, see [0037]).
With regard to claims 12-13, Buerkle teaches The brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 9, wherein the absolute value of the first deceleration is greater than or equal to 1.7 m/s2 and/or 3 m/s2 (the range between 3 and 7 m/s2 is the recommended range of deceleration values for human beings, see [0064]+).
With regard to claim 14, Buerkle teaches that the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 1, wherein the first event type comprises safety-related events, and the second event type comprises non-safety-related events (determining classification of the braking situation such as a normal driving situation, or an emergency driving situation, see [0072]+).
With regard to claim 15, Buerkle teaches that the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claim 14, wherein the safety-related events comprise at least one of a collision event and a lift event (detecting emergency situation and react appropriately to avoid collision with objects in front, see [0073]+).
With regard to claim 16, Buerkle discloses an autonomous operation device, configured to execute the brake control method for the autonomous operation device according to claims 1 (see [0036]+).
With regard to claim 17, Buerkle discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, is caused to implement the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see [0034]+.
With regard to claim 18, Buerkle discloses an autonomous operation device, comprising a control module, wherein the control module comprises a processor and the computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17 (see [0034]+).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Westlund (20190001941) discloses a system and method for activating autonomous braking maneuver of vehicle, involves activating autonomous braking which reduces speed and/or brakes vehicle to stop (see the abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights