DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 3-16 are pending. Claims dated 07/29/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered, and each argument is responded after the bolded.
Issue 1: Rejection of claim 1:
Applicant argues in p. 16 of remarks, “Igarashi et al. fails to disclose, teach or suggest "changing the target gate to another gate" as recited in amended independent Claims 1, 15 and 16 of Applicant's claimed disclosure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the disclosure of the cited Igarashi et al. reference with the basic configuration of the primary Tomatsu et al. reference to arrive at Applicant's claimed features as described”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. Igarashi’s vehicle control device is configured to autonomously carry out lane changes (as cited to [0042]-[0044], [0048] in the Office Action). Moving to one toll gate lane to a different toll gate lane via a lane change reads on “changing the target gate to another gate”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Igarashi with Tomatsu is to improve safety by ensuring the driver has adequate time to assume control in situations where autonomous lane execution is not feasible.
Applicant argues in p. 16 of remarks, “If the system abandons the original target gate and changes to another gate, the need for the manual operation intervention taught by Igarashi et al. is completely eliminated, rendering Igarashi et al.'s purpose moot. In other words, changing the target gate and transitioning to manual driving are mutually exclusive”
Examiner respectfully submits that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that changing the target gate and transitioning to manual driving must not be “mutually exclusive”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claim requires (1) “changing the target gate to another gate” and (2) “notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control, when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value”.
Igarashi’s vehicle control device is configured to conduct an autonomous lane change from the target toll gate lane to another toll gate lane. This teaches (1).
When a lane change from the other toll gate lane back toward the target toll gate lane is desired, Igarashi presents a driver intervention request to the driver to manually perform the lane change when autonomous lane change toward the target lane has not been completed (as cited to [0042]-[0044], [0048] in the Office Action). This teaches (2).
Both (1) autonomously changing to a different toll lane and (2) presenting the driving intervention request occur as sequential/consecutive events which reads on the claim limitation. Whether these events are or are not “mutually exclusive” is a moot argument as the claim does not require any temporal limitation and it is not clear how the features of mutual exclusivity are needed from the claimed language.
Issue 2: Rejection of claim 9:
Applicant argues in p. 17 of remarks, “the cited Foster et al. reference might disclose that upon
determination that a toll booth that the autonomous vehicle was targeting becomes closed
based on a toll sign indicating an open/closed status of the toll booth […] However, there is no disclosure of the feature of changing the target gate or executing a driving takeover request when it is detected, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, that another vehicle is reversing in the target gate, or that another vehicle has a hazard light turned on in the target gate, as recited in amended independent Claim 9 of Applicant's claimed disclosure”.
Applicant has amended the claim to remove the option of choosing “target gate is blocked” from the Markush Group selection, and therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground of rejection using Foster et al. (US-20230140569-A1) is used to teach claim 9.
Issue 3: Rejection of claim 10:
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the prior art rejections. See reasons for allowance.
Issue 4: Rejection of claim 11:
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the prior art rejections. See reasons for allowance.
Issue 4: Rejection of claim 12:
Applicant argues in pp. 20-21 of remarks, “Bae completely fails to disclose, teach or suggest selecting a specific gate among multiple gates, the concept of an extension line of a current lane, or autonomously steering the vehicle toward a specific gate. The Office Action's interpretation assuming a situation "in the case the guided toll lies on the lane the vehicle travels on" is based on an impermissible hindsight derived directly from Applicant's current disclosure, as there is absolutely no such disclosure in Bae.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument. Bae teaches a navigation device that identifies a relevant tollgate during driving even when no destination has been set (as cited to p. 3 in the Office Action).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument of the “concept of an extension line”, in Bae, a vehicle traveling forward in a lane has a projected path corresponding to an extension of that lane. Bae’s disclosure of the vehicle traveling on a road and approaching the tollgate necessarily includes a road segment that is aligned with the vehicle’s current lane when the vehicle continues along that road. The claimed “extension line” merely describes the spatial relationship of the vehicle’s existing lane with the continuation road and the claim does not require any additional structure beyond the road already disclosed. For example, the claim does not define/require any limitation as to how a “extension line of a current lane” is determined/calculated, there is no claim limitation of how long “a “extension line of a current lane” should be, where it should start, and/or where it should end.
Lastly, the primary reference Tomatsu teaches “autonomously steering the vehicle toward a specific gate”, so Bae was not relied upon to teach this limitation. The teachings of Tomatsu and Bae were combined.
Issue 5: Rejection of claim 13:
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the prior art rejections. See reasons for allowance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “switching between a first mode, in which the automated driving control is performed without an obligation of surrounding monitoring, and a second mode, in which the automated driving control is performed with the obligation of surrounding monitoring; maintaining the first mode in a pre-gate area existing before the target gate; and transitioning from the first mode to the second mode in a post-gate area existing after passing through the target gate, based on lateral movement being required to enter the post-gate area”. The closest prior art Ito et al. (US-20220266869-A1) teaches the claimed first mode and second mode (FIG. 6 hands-off mode M1 and hands-on mode M2 respectively), but Ito transfers modes before passing through the gate as opposed to after passing through the gate ([0165] in a lane-keeping travel scenario in “hands-off mode M1,” it can be ensured that transfer from the system to the driver will occur without discomfort before the host vehicle reaches the lane disappearance start point Ps1 when it has been confirmed that the driver is gripping the steering wheel 23).
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “delaying execution of the lane change immediately after passing through the other gate, and executing the lane change after traveling a predetermined distance from the other gate, when the final change point is the predetermined distance or more away from the other gate”. The closest prior art Foster et al. (US-20230020966-A1) teaches the claimed executing the lane change after traveling a predetermined distance from the other gate, when the final change point is the predetermined distance or more away from the other gate as “the autonomous vehicle may re-route its trajectory such that the autonomous vehicle can still arrive at the final destination” based on traffic conditions ([0094], [0146]), but not specifically to delaying execution of the lane change immediately after passing through the other gate.
Regarding claim 13, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “stopping the preceding-vehicle following control of the subsystem, while maintaining the automated driving control to pass through the target gate, based on a remaining distance to the target gate being less than a predetermined value”. The closest prior art Takahashi et al. (US-20200043247-A1) teaches stopping the preceding-vehicle following control of the subsystem based on a remaining distance to the target gate being less than a predetermined value as the autonomous vehicle switches to manual driving ([0060], [0067], [0090]-[0091]), but not specifically while maintaining the automated driving control to pass through the target gate. Emoto (US-20210331707-A1) teaches carrying out preceding-vehicle following control to drive the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle while maintaining a predetermined inter-vehicle distance, as a subsystem of the automated driving control; and (FIG. 8 set target passage gate S2, extract preceding vehicle S5b, carry out following travel S7b) and stopping the preceding-vehicle following control of the subsystem (FIG. 8 termination condition satisfied S6a; [0055] The termination condition includes passing through the gate 110), but the stopping is performed after passing the gate as opposed to a predetermined distance before passing the gate.
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu et al. (US-20170232967-A1), in view of Igarashi et al. (US-20200039584-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Tomatsu and Igarashi, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Tomatsu teaches a vehicle control device configured to execute automated driving control to autonomously drive a vehicle (FIG. 1 autonomous driving apparatus 100), the vehicle control device comprising a controller configured to carry out (FIG. 1 ECU 10):
acquiring information about a gate point based on an output signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor, a wireless signal received from an external device, or map data, the gate point being a location on a toll road where multiple gates are provided (FIG. 1 map acquiring unit 11; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4. The acquired map information includes […] the positions of gates that are installed at the tolling station and the like);
acquiring data regarding a post-gate road that the vehicle is scheduled to travel on after passing the gate point (FIG. 1 navigation system 5 and map acquiring unit 11; FIG. 4 target route Lb towards post-gate road Rbr; [0048] The navigation system 5 calculates, for example, a target route from the position of the own vehicle V to the destination; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4);
setting a target gate as a gate closest to the post-gate road among the multiple gates provided at the gate point; and (FIG. 1 gate selecting unit 16; FIG. 4 setting gate G3 as the gate closest to the post-gate road Rbr among the multiple gates G1, G2, G3 provided at the tolling station T; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time)
executing lateral movement of the vehicle in a direction toward the target gate based on the vehicle entering a preparation section that exists before the target gate (FIG. 4 executes lateral movement via path La of the vehicle V in a direction towards the target gate G3 based on the vehicle entering road Ra).
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value.
However, Igarashi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value ([0042] When the lane change of the vehicle by the autonomous driving cannot be performed due to an operational design domain (ODD) or the like, the autonomous driving system 100 requests the driver to perform the lane change of the vehicle; [0043] the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle when a length of a lane changeable section for the vehicle is shorter than a distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving; [0044] …thus, the length of the section is shorter than the distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving, the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle; [0048] The lane change request unit 17 makes the request to the driver, for example, by the sound output from the speaker in the vehicle)
In Igarashi, the Examiner interprets the driver intervention request is a limitation of autonomous control which corresponds to the claimed “notifying a driver...”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Igarashi to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by ensuring the driver has adequate time to assume control in situations where autonomous lane execution is not feasible.
Regarding claim 8, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Tomatsu also teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out setting the target gate such that an amount of lateral movement after passing through the target gate is smaller than an amount of lateral movement before passing through the target gate (FIG. 4 in the case where the vehicle V is near gate G1 in road Ra and needs to perform lateral movement to gate G3 to get to road Rbr, the amount of lateral movement after passing through the target gate G3 is smaller than an amount of lateral movement before passing through the target gate G3; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time).
Regarding claim 14, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Tomatsu also teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out setting a target speed, which is a target travel speed, to a predetermined value for passing through a gate based on the vehicle entering a gate area which is an area determined with reference to the gate point ([0060] The path and speed plan creation unit 17 creates a path and speed plan for the own vehicle V. The path and speed plan includes, for example, the path along which the own vehicle V will proceed on the target route, and the speed, acceleration, deceleration, direction and steering angle and the like of the own vehicle V at each moment; [0068] … changes in the speed of the own vehicle V in accordance with the traveling position are illustrated in FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 15, Tomatsu teaches a vehicle control method for executing automated driving control to autonomously drive a vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring information about a gate point based on an output signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor, a wireless signal received from an external device, or map data, the gate point being a location on a toll road where multiple gates are provided (FIG. 1 map acquiring unit 11; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4. The acquired map information includes […] the positions of gates that are installed at the tolling station and the like);
acquiring data regarding a post-gate road that the vehicle is scheduled to travel on after passing the gate point (FIG. 1 navigation system 5 and map acquiring unit 11; FIG. 4 target route Lb towards post-gate road Rbr; [0048] The navigation system 5 calculates, for example, a target route from the position of the own vehicle V to the destination; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4);
setting a target gate as a gate closest to the post-gate road among the multiple gates provided at the gate point; and (FIG. 1 gate selecting unit 16; FIG. 4 setting gate G3 as the gate closest to the post-gate road Rbr among the multiple gates G1, G2, G3 provided at the tolling station T; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time)
executing lateral movement of the vehicle in a direction toward the target gate based on the vehicle entering a preparation section that exists before the target gate (FIG. 4 executes lateral movement via path La of the vehicle V in a direction towards the target gate G3 based on the vehicle entering road Ra).
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value.
However, Igarashi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value ([0042] When the lane change of the vehicle by the autonomous driving cannot be performed due to an operational design domain (ODD) or the like, the autonomous driving system 100 requests the driver to perform the lane change of the vehicle; [0043] the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle when a length of a lane changeable section for the vehicle is shorter than a distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving; [0044] …thus, the length of the section is shorter than the distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving, the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle; [0048] The lane change request unit 17 makes the request to the driver, for example, by the sound output from the speaker in the vehicle)
In Igarashi, the Examiner interprets the driver intervention request is a limitation of autonomous control which corresponds to the claimed “notifying a driver...”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Igarashi to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by ensuring the driver has adequate time to assume control in situations where autonomous lane execution is not feasible.
Regarding claim 16, Tomatsu teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program comprising instructions executed by at least one processor included in a vehicle control device configured to execute automated driving control to autonomously drive a vehicle, the instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (FIG. 1 ECU 10; [0053] The ECU 10 controls driving of the own vehicle V. The ECU 10 is an electronic control unit having a CPU (central processing unit), a RUM (read only memory), a RAM (random access memory), and the like):
acquiring information about a gate point based on an output signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor, a wireless signal received from an external device, or map data, the gate point being a location on a toll road where multiple gates are provided (FIG. 1 map acquiring unit 11; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4. The acquired map information includes […] the positions of gates that are installed at the tolling station and the like);
acquiring data regarding a post-gate road that the vehicle is scheduled to travel on after passing the gate point (FIG. 1 navigation system 5 and map acquiring unit 11; FIG. 4 target route Lb towards post-gate road Rbr; [0048] The navigation system 5 calculates, for example, a target route from the position of the own vehicle V to the destination; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4);
setting a target gate as a gate closest to the post-gate road among the multiple gates provided at the gate point; and (FIG. 1 gate selecting unit 16; FIG. 4 setting gate G3 as the gate closest to the post-gate road Rbr among the multiple gates G1, G2, G3 provided at the tolling station T; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time)
executing lateral movement of the vehicle in a direction toward the target gate based on the vehicle entering a preparation section that exists before the target gate (FIG. 4 executes lateral movement via path La of the vehicle V in a direction towards the target gate G3 based on the vehicle entering road Ra).
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value.
However, Igarashi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value ([0042] When the lane change of the vehicle by the autonomous driving cannot be performed due to an operational design domain (ODD) or the like, the autonomous driving system 100 requests the driver to perform the lane change of the vehicle; [0043] the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle when a length of a lane changeable section for the vehicle is shorter than a distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving; [0044] …thus, the length of the section is shorter than the distance sufficient for the lane change by the autonomous driving, the lane change determination unit 16 determines that it is necessary for the driver to perform the operation intervention for the lane change of the vehicle; [0048] The lane change request unit 17 makes the request to the driver, for example, by the sound output from the speaker in the vehicle)
In Igarashi, the Examiner interprets the driver intervention request is a limitation of autonomous control which corresponds to the claimed “notifying a driver...”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Igarashi to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing the target gate to another gate and notifying a driver that there is a possibility of termination of the automated driving control when a lane change toward the target gate has not been completed and a remaining distance to the target gate becomes less than a predetermined value, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by ensuring the driver has adequate time to assume control in situations where autonomous lane execution is not feasible.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu, in view of Igarashi, in view of Ue et al. (JP-2000285396-A) and herein after will be referred to as Ue.
Regarding claim 3, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach further comprising: a preceding-vehicle following control unit as a subsystem for the automated driving control, the preceding-vehicle following control unit being configured to carry out preceding-vehicle following control to drive the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle while maintaining a predetermined inter-vehicle distance, wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing a target speed of the vehicle for passing through the target gate according to whether the preceding vehicle has been recognized.
However, Ue teaches further comprising: a preceding-vehicle following control unit as a subsystem for the automated driving control, the preceding-vehicle following control unit being configured to carry out preceding-vehicle following control to drive the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle while maintaining a predetermined inter-vehicle distance, wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing a target speed of the vehicle for passing through the target gate according to whether the preceding vehicle has been recognized ([0006] Therefore, the object of the present invention is to provide a vehicle driving control device that can smoothly control the driving of a vehicle when passing through gates such as toll booths where the vehicle must slow down; [0007] The above objective is achieved by a vehicle driving control device comprising: a distance control means that performs following control to maintain a distance corresponding to the driving speed of the preceding vehicle when there is a preceding vehicle and a constant speed driving control at a set speed when there is no preceding vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Ue to include further comprising: a preceding-vehicle following control unit as a subsystem for the automated driving control, the preceding-vehicle following control unit being configured to carry out preceding-vehicle following control to drive the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle while maintaining a predetermined inter-vehicle distance, wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing a target speed of the vehicle for passing through the target gate according to whether the preceding vehicle has been recognized, with a reasonable expectation of success to “smoothly control the driving of a vehicle when passing through gates such as toll booths where the vehicle must slow down” (Ue [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 3. Tomatsu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a predetermined first speed when the preceding vehicle has been recognized, the first speed being determined depending on a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate; and setting the target speed as a second speed that is lower than the first speed when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized.
However, Ue also teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a predetermined first speed when the preceding vehicle has been recognized ([0007] The above objective is achieved by a vehicle driving control device comprising: a distance control means that performs following control to maintain a distance corresponding to the driving speed of the preceding vehicle when there is a preceding vehicle; In this case, if it is determined that there is a vehicle ahead, the system performs distance control to adjust the following distance to match the speed of the vehicle ahead (step 26), and then returns to step 25 and repeats the process),
the first speed being determined depending on a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate; and ([0008] Here, a gate for vehicles that requires them to stop or pass at a specified speed or slower refers to, but is not limited to, toll booths, inspection stations, or gates for automated toll collection systems such as ETC on toll roads; [0010] The gate approach detection means 12 detects whether the vehicle has stopped or is approaching a gate required for vehicle passage at a specified speed or below, based on information from at least one of the navigation device 4 and the road condition receiving unit 6)
In Ueda, in the preceding vehicle following mode, if the preceding vehicle moves at the specified speed, the distance control means controls the vehicle to follow at the specified speed, wherein the specified speed corresponds to the “maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate”.
setting the target speed as a second speed that is lower than the first speed when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized ([0007] … and a constant speed driving control at a set speed when there is no preceding vehicle; [0013] Furthermore, if it is determined in step 25 that there is no preceding vehicle, it is determined whether the vehicle's speed is less than or equal to the specified speed, as shown in Figure 2(b) (step 27). If, as a result, it is determined that the vehicle speed is not below the specified speed, the process returns to deceleration control in step 24. Because further deceleration is necessary).
In Ueda, in the control speed mode, the vehicle speed is set less than or equal to the specified speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Ue to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a predetermined first speed when the preceding vehicle has been recognized, the first speed being determined depending on a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate; and setting the target speed as a second speed that is lower than the first speed when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized, with a reasonable expectation of success to “smoothly control the driving of a vehicle when passing through gates such as toll booths where the vehicle must slow down” (Ue [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 3. Tomatsu, as modified, does not explicitly teach: wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a passing speed of the preceding vehicle passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has been recognized; and setting the target speed as a predetermined value smaller than a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized.
However, Ueda also teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a passing speed of the preceding vehicle passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has been recognized; and ([0008] Here, a gate for vehicles that requires them to stop or pass at a specified speed or slower refers to, but is not limited to, toll booths, inspection stations, or gates for automated toll collection systems such as ETC on toll roads; [0010] The gate approach detection means 12 detects whether the vehicle has stopped or is approaching a gate required for vehicle passage at a specified speed or below, based on information from at least one of the navigation device 4 and the road condition receiving unit 6)
In Ueda, in the preceding vehicle following mode, if the preceding vehicle moves at the specified speed, the distance control means controls the vehicle to follow at the specified speed, wherein the specified speed corresponds to the “passing speed”.
setting the target speed as a predetermined value smaller than a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized ([0007] … and a constant speed driving control at a set speed when there is no preceding vehicle; [0013] Furthermore, if it is determined in step 25 that there is no preceding vehicle, it is determined whether the vehicle's speed is less than or equal to the specified speed, as shown in Figure 2(b) (step 27). If, as a result, it is determined that the vehicle speed is not below the specified speed, the process returns to deceleration control in step 24. Because further deceleration is necessary).
In Ueda, in the control speed mode, the vehicle speed is set less than or equal to the specified speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Ue to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: setting the target speed as a passing speed of the preceding vehicle passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has been recognized; and setting the target speed as a predetermined value smaller than a maximum allowable speed for passing through the gate when the preceding vehicle has not been recognized, with a reasonable expectation of success to “smoothly control the driving of a vehicle when passing through gates such as toll booths where the vehicle must slow down” (Ue [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu, in view of Igarashi, in view of Takemori et al. (WO-2021014954-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Takemori.
Regarding claim 6, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: determining whether the vehicle is traveling in a lane-free section where lane lines are not present, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, the wireless signal received from the external device, or the map data; and executing predetermined external notification control when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction in the lane-free section, and the external notification control includes at least one of: activating a turn signal; lighting a hazard lamp; sounding a horn; lighting a welcome lamp; and displaying an image indicating a movement direction of the vehicle on an external display device.
However, Takemori teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: determining whether the vehicle is traveling in a lane-free section where lane lines are not present, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, the wireless signal received from the external device, or the map data; and ([0047] The undetected position determination unit 103 is a functional unit that determines whether or not an undetected position UDP, which corresponds to a position where the road lines of the vehicle A's driving lane are no longer detected, exists within the virtual area VA; [0053] In step S108, the undetected position determination unit 103 determines whether or not there is an undetected position UDP of the road line of the vehicle A's driving lane, as shown in Figure 12, within the virtual region VA identified in step S107.)
executing predetermined external notification control when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction in the lane-free section, and the external notification control includes at least one of: activating a turn signal; lighting a hazard lamp; sounding a horn; lighting a welcome lamp; and displaying an image indicating a movement direction of the vehicle on an external display device ([0058] On the other hand, if in step S108 it is determined that there is an undetected UDP location within the virtual area VA identified in step S107 (YES), the process branches to step S111; [0059] In step S111, the image generation unit 102 executes an image generation process to generate an image as shown in Figure 15. In this image generation process, as shown in Figure 14, the image generation unit 102 can draw virtual objects VO1 corresponding to continuously detected road lines with solid lines, and virtual objects VO2 corresponding to road lines that are no longer detected with dotted lines; [0139] Image content CT21 shows the vehicle's planned driving trajectory and warns the driver of the vehicle's lateral movement due to offset control; [0152] Furthermore, even if road markings are not detected while the lane keeping control unit 52 is performing offset control, the image generation unit 102 can notify the driver of the lane keeping control unit 52's planned control by generating a continuation notification image or a completion notification image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Takemori to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out: determining whether the vehicle is traveling in a lane-free section where lane lines are not present, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, the wireless signal received from the external device, or the map data; and executing predetermined external notification control when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction in the lane-free section, and the external notification control includes at least one of: activating a turn signal; lighting a hazard lamp; sounding a horn; lighting a welcome lamp; and displaying an image indicating a movement direction of the vehicle on an external display device, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “improving driver convenience” (Takemori [0152]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu, in view of Igarashi, in view of Haight (US-20180244195-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Haight.
Regarding claim 7, Tomatsu, as modified, teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
While Tomatsu does disclose the vehicle performing a lateral movement after passing through the gate (FIG. 4 path Lb), Tomatsu does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out initiating activation of a turn signal either from when passing the target gate or within a predetermined distance after passing the gate, when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction after passing through the gate.
However, Haight teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out initiating activation of a turn signal either from when passing the target gate or within a predetermined distance after passing the gate, when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction after passing through the gate ([0030] Generally, this disclosure discloses a technology for automatically activating a turn signal source of a first vehicle when the first vehicle will imminently leave its current lane…).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Haight to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out initiating activation of a turn signal either from when passing the target gate or within a predetermined distance after passing the gate, when the vehicle moves in a lateral direction after passing through the gate, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of increasing safety as the driver no longer needs to manually activate the turn signal, avoiding situations where the driver neglects to activate the turn signal (Haight [0003]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu, in view of Foster et al. (US-20230140569-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Foster.
Regarding claim 9, Tomatsu teaches a vehicle control device configured to execute automated driving control to autonomously drive a vehicle (FIG. 1 autonomous driving apparatus 100), the vehicle control device comprising a controller configured to carry out (FIG. 1 ECU 10):
acquiring information about a gate point based on an output signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor, a wireless signal received from an external device, or map data, the gate point being a location on a toll road where multiple gates are provided (FIG. 1 map acquiring unit 11; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4. The acquired map information includes […] the positions of gates that are installed at the tolling station and the like);
acquiring data regarding a post-gate road that the vehicle is scheduled to travel on after passing the gate point (FIG. 1 navigation system 5 and map acquiring unit 11; FIG. 4 target route Lb towards post-gate road Rbr; [0048] The navigation system 5 calculates, for example, a target route from the position of the own vehicle V to the destination; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4);
setting a target gate as a gate closest to the post-gate road among the multiple gates provided at the gate point; and (FIG. 1 gate selecting unit 16; FIG. 4 setting gate G3 as the gate closest to the post-gate road Rbr among the multiple gates G1, G2, G3 provided at the tolling station T; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time)
executing lateral movement of the vehicle in a direction toward the target gate based on the vehicle entering a preparation section that exists before the target gate (FIG. 4 executes lateral movement via path La of the vehicle V in a direction towards the target gate G3 based on the vehicle entering road Ra).
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach changing the target gate or executing a driving takeover request when it is detected, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, that another vehicle is reversing in the target gate or that another vehicle has a hazard light turned on.
However, Foster teaches changing the target gate or executing a driving takeover request when it is detected, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, that another vehicle is reversing in the target gate or that another vehicle has a hazard light turned on (FIG. 4F Ego vehicle automatically performs lane change when NPC vehicle is reversing/moving towards the Ego vehicle; [0449] [0449] The in-vehicle control computer 150 can further be configured to detect the direction of movement of vehicles that are detected in front, to the right, or to the left side of the autonomous vehicle 105. In response to the detected direction of movement being opposite to the expected traffic flow indicated by map or by traffic signs of the road, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can classify the vehicle as a dynamic non-compliant driver 428 and inform the oversight system 350 of the location, direction, and speed of the dynamic non-compliant driver 428. In response to detecting an oncoming dynamic non-compliant driver 428 in the same lane as the autonomous vehicle 105 and the direction of movement being towards the autonomous vehicle 105, the in-vehicle control computer 150 can consider a critical safety lane change intention and perform a lane change if possible).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Foster to include changing the target gate or executing a driving takeover request when it is detected, based on the output signal from the surrounding monitoring sensor, that another vehicle is reversing in the target gate or that another vehicle has a hazard light turned on, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of increased safety to allow continuing to an toll booth at a different lane while avoiding collision with the reversing front vehicle.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomatsu, in view of Bae (KR-20110075294-A) and herein after will be referred to as Bae.
Regarding claim 12, Tomatsu teaches a vehicle control device configured to execute automated driving control to autonomously drive a vehicle (FIG. 1 autonomous driving apparatus 100), the vehicle control device comprising a controller configured to carry out (FIG. 1 ECU 10):
acquiring information about a gate point based on an output signal from a surrounding monitoring sensor, a wireless signal received from an external device, or map data, the gate point being a location on a toll road where multiple gates are provided (FIG. 1 map acquiring unit 11; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4. The acquired map information includes […] the positions of gates that are installed at the tolling station and the like);
acquiring data regarding a post-gate road that the vehicle is scheduled to travel on after passing the gate point (FIG. 1 navigation system 5 and map acquiring unit 11; FIG. 4 target route Lb towards post-gate road Rbr; [0048] The navigation system 5 calculates, for example, a target route from the position of the own vehicle V to the destination; [0054] The map acquiring unit 11 acquires map information relating to a road that the own vehicle V is traveling on from the map database 4);
determining whether a destination of the vehicle is set ([0048] …a destination set on a map by the driver of the own vehicle V)
setting a target gate as a gate closest to the post-gate road among the multiple gates provided at the gate point when the destination is set; and (FIG. 1 gate selecting unit 16; FIG. 4 setting gate G3 as the gate closest to the post-gate road Rbr among the multiple gates G1, G2, G3 provided at the tolling station T; [0073] Hence, in the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the gate that most satisfies the selection criterion 3 is the gate G3, and by selecting the gate G3 it is possible for the own vehicle V to enter the road Rbr in the shortest time)
executing lateral movement of the vehicle in a direction toward the target gate based on the vehicle entering a preparation section that exists before the target gate (FIG. 4 executes lateral movement via path La of the vehicle V in a direction towards the target gate G3 based on the vehicle entering road Ra).
Tomatsu does not explicitly teach setting the target gate as a gate that lies on an extension line of a lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling, without depending on the post-gate road, when the destination is not set.
However, Bae teaches setting the target gate as a gate that lies on an extension line of a lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling, without depending on the post-gate road, when the destination is not set. (page 3: However, toll information is provided only when a destination is set and there is a toll booth on the route from the current location to the destination. In other words, there was a problem that it was limited only when a destination was set. The present invention was devised to improve the aforementioned problems, and aims to provide a toll guidance method using a vehicle navigation system that guides the toll collected at a toll booth when a toll booth is found on a driving route within a certain distance from the current location while driving without setting a destination. The present invention can improve the convenience of using navigation by guiding tolls even while guiding only the current location without setting a destination).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tomatsu to incorporate the teachings of Bae to include wherein the controller is further configured to carry out setting the target gate as a gate that lies on an extension line of a lane in which the vehicle is currently traveling, without depending on the post-gate road, when the destination is not set, with a reasonable expectation of success to “improve the convenience of using navigation by guiding tolls even while guiding only the current location without setting a destination” (Bae page 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Emoto (US-20210331707-A1) teaches carrying out preceding-vehicle following control to drive the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle while maintaining a predetermined inter-vehicle distance, as a subsystem of the automated driving control; and (FIG. 8 set target passage gate S2, extract preceding vehicle S5b, carry out following travel S7b) and stopping the preceding-vehicle following control of the subsystem (FIG. 8 termination condition satisfied S6a; [0055] The termination condition includes passing through the gate 110), but the stopping is performed after passing the gate as opposed to a predetermined distance before passing the gate.
US 20190377344 A1: Ishioka teaches parts of claim 1 particularly in [0075] “FIG. 8 is a diagram showing one example of static scores. The horizontal axis represents identification information of gates, and the vertical axis represents scores. The gate selector 123c, for example, assigns a static score to each gate from a viewpoint of easy movement to a destination. The gate selector 123c sets a score assigned to a gate (3) to be the highest and sets a score assigned to a gate (1) to be the second highest. The reason for this is that, by causing the subject vehicle to pass through the gate (3), in a case in which the subject vehicle M is directed in the direction A from the current position of the subject vehicle M, a passage path is the shortest, and a change in the behavior of the vehicle is the smallest. In addition, the static score is not limited thereto and may be calculated from a viewpoint of easy movement to a destination, and various techniques may be employed for details of the calculation method thereof. The gate selector 123c selects the gate (3) that is the most efficient for being directed in the direction A as a gate through which passage is planned on the basis of scores assigned to the gates. Then, the gate passage controller 123A changes the lane of the subject vehicle M from a lane L2 to a lane L1 allowing easy passage through the gate (3).”
US 20200041299 A1: Kato is relevant to claim 9 when first filed see FIG. 6 target gate 3 is invalid/blocked so one of target gate 1 or 2 is chosen instead
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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 on (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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights