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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on June 02, 2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional Application No. 63/356,963 , filed on June 29, 2022, is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application, and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application date June 02, 2025, and the provisional application dated June 29, 2022. No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 18/343,843, filed June 29, 2023, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 470 in Figure 4 is not included in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0086767 A1, to Matsunaga (hereinafter referred to as Matsunaga), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20241/0208592 A1), to Jacobsen (hereinafter referred to as Jacobsen).
As per Claim 1, Matsunaga discloses the features of a method for controlling an autonomous vehicle operating around a controlled movement area (e.g. Paragraphs [0049], [0073], [0147]; Figure 18; where the vehicle system (1) includes an automated driving control device (100), and the behavior plan generator (140) generates a target trajectory along which the vehicle (M) will travel in the future automatically, and where the behavior plan generator (140) monitors the environmental level in a first and second region (AR1, AR2) (i.e., controlled area)) comprising:
operating the autonomous vehicle according to a mission plan executed by a processor communicating with the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0073]-[0074], [008]-[0081]; where the behavior plan generator (140) may set automated driving events when generating a target trajectory, such that the vehicle (M) maintains a constant-speed traveling event, a following traveling event, a lane change event, etc.; and where automated driving or driving assistance may be executed in a designated road section);
receiving an evacuation order at the processor (e.g. Paragraph [0054], [0082]; where the communication device (20) communicates with another vehicle present in the vicinity of vehicle (M); and where the behavior plan generator (140) shunts the vehicle (M) when automated driving cannot be executed from a road on which the vehicle is traveling (i.e., receives updated plans indicating a need to shunt (i.e., relocate) the vehicle));
pausing execution of the mission plan (e.g. Paragraph [0082], [0109]; Figure 5; where if it is determined that the vehicle (M) cannot execute automated driving, the system stops the vehicle at the rear of another vehicle (m) when it is determined that the vehicle (M) cannot continue in the driving state (i.e., pauses/ stops current automated travel of the vehicle));
determining a current location of the vehicle from a GNSS unit installed on the vehicle (e.g. Paragraph [0059]; where the navigation device (50) includes a GNSS receiver (51) to determine the position of the vehicle);
determining an evacuation location if the current location of the vehicle is within the controlled movement area (e.g. Paragraph [0147]-[0148]; where the behavior plan generator (140) suspends automated driving in a case where the environmental level changes to less than the threshold in a first region (AR1) including the vehicle, and shunts the vehicle (M) to a shunt location based on the environment level and the location of the vehicle in the first region (AR1)); and
driving the vehicle to the evacuation location (e.g. Paragraph [0090]; where the behavior plan generator (140) shunts the vehicle to a shunt location to suspend automated driving in a case where the real-time environment corresponds to a predetermined condition, such as an emergency vehicle being stopped on the road).
Jacobsen, in a similar field of endeavor, more explicitly teaches the features of receiving an evacuation order at the processor.
Jacobsen teaches a method for evacuating one or more mobile robots, where one or more robots receive an evacuation command from a remote server, the system determines an evacuation action to be performed and directs the one or more robots to leave the evacuation area and enter a location outside the evacuation area in response to the one or more evacuation command (e.g. Paragraphs [0006], [0013]-[0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle control device of Matsunaga, with the feature of receiving an evacuation order in the system of Jacobsen, in order to keep areas free of robots to ensure robots are not blocking the path (see at least Paragraph [0002] of Jacobsen).
As per Claim 2, Matsunaga, in view of Jacobsen, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Matsunaga further discloses the features of wherein the evacuation location comprises a location outside the controlled movement area and a defined distance away from the boundary of the controlled movement area (e.g. Paragraph [0102]; where the shunt location is a position at which the passage of other traffic participants (vehicles or pedestrians) is not obstructed, such as, for example, to include the shoulder of a road or stoppable spaces around the road (i.e., a defined distance from traffic and road lanes)).
As per Claim 3, Matsunaga, in view of Jacobsen, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Matsunaga further discloses the features of wherein the step of driving the vehicle to the evacuation location further comprises pausing the vehicle, determining a new evacuation location, and driving the vehicle to the new evacuation location if an obstacle is detected (e.g. Paragraphs [0069], [0082], [0108]-[0109], [0112]; Figure 5; where the recognizer (130) recognizes the position and speed of another vehicle, and the behavior plan generator (140) moves the vehicle in a case where it is recognized that the shunt location is required to be changed on the bases of the result of the detector, such as when an object (another vehicle, m) on the road is influencing the traveling of the host vehicle (M), such as an accident (i.e., obstructs the path of the host vehicle), and the vehicle (M) may stop at shunt location based on the environmental level being higher than 1).
As per Claim 4, Matsunaga, in view of Jacobsen, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Matsunaga further discloses the features of further comprising operating the autonomous vehicle according to the mission plan in areas outside the controlled movement area (e.g. Paragraphs [0106]-[0107]; where the vehicle (M) is traveling in the lane (L1), and the environment recognizer (130) recognizes that an event or object influencing the traveling of the vehicle (M) is not present on the road (the lane L1 or the vicinity of lane L1), the vehicle travels in the automated driving state).
As per Claim 5, Matsunaga, in view of Jacobsen, teaches the features of Claim 1, and Matsunaga further discloses the features of further comprising receiving a cancellation of the evacuation order and resuming the mission plan (e.g. Paragraph [0090], [0112]; where the behavior plan generator (140) resumes the automated driving in a case where the real-time environment that has occurred due to a predetermined factor is resolved (for example, the emergency vehicle has left) after the shunt).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Floyd, (U.S. 11,710,402 B2), which teaches a method for receiving a broadcast at an autonomous vehicle indicative of an emergency situation and navigating the vehicle in response.
Gordon, et al (U.S. 9,869,560 B2), which teaches a method for controlling self-driving vehicles in response to receiving an emergency message.
Hiramatsu (U.S. 2019/0227561 A1), which teaches a method for controlling a vehicle within a field.
Long (U.S. 10,338,594 B2), which teaches a method for navigating an autonomous vehicle under fault conditions and navigating the vehicle to a safe location along the direction of travel.
Regmi, et al (U.S. 10,241,511 B2), which teaches a method for detecting an emergency, and controlling the vehicle to stop or pull over in response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights