The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on 6/10/25, in which Claims 1-33 are presented for examination of which Claims 1 is in independent form.
Specification
Please include “collision” and “notification” into the title.
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.
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, 3-8, 10-11, 14-16, 20-21, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamauchi (JP 2022090686 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamauchi (JP 2022090686 A) discloses a control device (0027] control unit 125 including the ECU (CPU) and the like) configured to control an in-vehicle device in a vehicle capable of traveling by automated driving without a periphery monitoring obligation of a driver ([0001], [0006] self-driving cars), the control device comprising:
at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor ([0027] CPU; [0029] system uses program and memory), the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the control device to:
serve as an information grasping unit (part of CPU that determines a collision [0030] and performs evaluation [0038]) configured to determine collision occurrence information indicating presence or absence of a collision between the vehicle and a different object during the automated driving ([0030] collision detection unit 117 uses hydraulic sensors attached to the front, rear, and side surfaces of the vehicle, and the sensors are divided into front left and right, side surfaces, and rear left and right of the vehicle, and when the vehicle comes into contact or collides, A collision is detected), and
vehicle control information indicating a state of a vehicle control of the vehicle after the vehicle control is performed according to the collision ([0038] In step 208, the travel determination unit 112 determines whether or not the own vehicle is "travelable" based on the above inspection result); and
a notification control unit ([0031] the display unit 123 and the speaker unit 124 are combined to form a notification unit) configure to perform both of a notification indicating a control state of the vehicle after the vehicle control is performed according to the collision ([0035]-[0036] in step 207, the inspection unit 111 operates, and after the collision, whether the drive unit A, the steering unit B, the braking unit C, and the light emitting unit D operate normally…automatic driving function unit 110 for implementation are inspected…main inspection result displayed on the display unit 123) and a notification indicating that a system performs request or warning for driving takeover to the driver ([0037] result is displayed on the display unit 123. The result of this inspection is "automatic driving impossible").
Regarding Claim 3, Yamauchi discloses when the information grasping unit determines that an automated driving function of the vehicle has been limited after an occurrence of the collision, the notification control unit performs a notification indicating that the automated driving function has been limited ([0037] result is displayed on the display unit 123. The result of this inspection is "automatic driving impossible").
Regarding Claim 4, Yamauchi discloses the information grasping unit is configured to determine an operation on an operation device of the vehicle to turn on an automated driving function ([0011] automatic operation mode is automatically switched to the automatic operation mode for evacuation, or when the driver performs an operation to switch to the automatic operation mode), and when the information grasping unit determines that the automated driving function of the vehicle has been limited after an occurrence of the collision and the operation to turn on the automated driving function has been performed, the notification control unit performs the notification indicating that the automated driving has been limited ([0037] result is displayed on the display unit 123. The result of this inspection is "automatic driving impossible").
3>Regarding Claim 5, Yamauchi discloses in the vehicle, release of limitation of the automated driving function is prohibited until a vehicle manager performs an initialization operation ([0039] if it is determined in step 209 that "automatic operation is not possible", the process proceeds to step 213, and the automatic operation mode is switched to the manual operation mode. This switching may be automatically executed by detecting a collision, or may be one in which the driver operates a predetermined switch).
3>Regarding Claim 6, Yamauchi discloses in the vehicle, release of limitation of the automated driving function is performed based on an on-state of an activation switch of the vehicle ([0039] switching may be automatically executed by detecting a collision, or may be one in which the driver operates a predetermined switch).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification indicating a collision part of the vehicle ([0057] detection activates the camera unit 114 to capture images of the front, rear, and sides of the own vehicle…image at the time of the collision, the collision time, and the collision position are automatically transmitted from the transmission unit 121).
7>Regarding Claim 8, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification indicating a malfunction associated with the collision part ([0035]-[0037]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification indicating a position on a road where the vehicle has stopped ([0057] detection activates the camera unit 114 to capture images of the front, rear, and sides of the own vehicle. Next, in step 503, the car navigation function unit 109 detects the current own vehicle position…image at the time of the collision, the collision time, and the collision position are automatically transmitted from the transmission unit 121).
10>Regarding Claim 11, Yamauchi discloses the notification indicating the position on the road where the vehicle has stopped includes information indicating, among a plurality of lanes of the road, a lane where the vehicle has stopped ([0057] detection activates the camera unit 114 to capture images of the front, rear, and sides of the own vehicle. Next, in step 503, the car navigation function unit 109 detects the current own vehicle position (collision position)…the image at the time of the collision, the collision time, and the collision position are automatically transmitted from the transmission unit 121, [note: camera image of front, rear and sides would include lane position]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit performs, as a notification that performs the request or the warning for the driving takeover to the driver, a notification that prompts driving takeover that is less urgent than driving takeover in a state where an automated driving function is limited, in response to determination of continuing the automated driving function in a case of determining whether to continue the automated driving performed under a preset condition according to an aspect of the collision ([0057]-[0058] step 506, the driver is asked about the intention of switching from the current automatic driving mode to the manual driving mode while announcing the operation method by voice [note: less urgent than, "automatic operation is not possible" [0039] step 208]; [0059] in step 508, the car navigation function unit 109 automatically operates to search for a predetermined public facility closest to the own vehicle).
14>Regarding Claim 15, Yamauchi discloses the preset condition based on the aspect of the collision is a condition based on an extent of the condition and a malfunction state of a periphery monitoring sensor mounted on the vehicle ([0037]-[0039] determines whether the vehicle can or cannot travel, based on different vehicle units including radar and external circumstances).
14>Regarding Claim 16, Yamauchi discloses the preset condition based on the aspect of the collision is a condition based on a collision part of the vehicle and the different object ([0037]-[0039] determines whether the vehicle can or cannot travel, based on different vehicle units including radar (that are impacted by the collision) and the “another vehicle” [0041]).
Regarding Claim 20, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is configured to perform a notification indicating guidance for accident handling after the collision ([0040] the vehicle, the predetermined public facility, the telephone number of the public facility, and the required time are displayed on the screen of the display unit (see FIG. 10); [0042] if the inspection result is a minor accident, it is sent only to the insurance company and the police station in that order, and if it is a serious accident, it is sent to the emergency hospital, the police station, the insurance company, the home, etc. [note: guidance includes who to call]).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification indicating an action required of an occupant of the vehicle after the collision ([0040] the vehicle, the predetermined public facility, the telephone number of the public facility, and the required time are displayed on the screen of the display unit (see FIG. 10); [0042] if the inspection result is a minor accident, it is sent only to the insurance company and the police station in that order, and if it is a serious accident, it is sent to the emergency hospital, the police station, the insurance company, the home, etc. [note: guidance includes who to call]).
Regarding Claim 23, Yamauchi discloses the notification control unit is configured to perform a notification indicating a position of a replacement vehicle ([0040] emergency vehicle [for instance an ambulance]) according to an arrival of the replacement vehicle to which an occupant of the vehicle transfers from the vehicle after the collision ([0040] emergency vehicle from the above public facility is dispatched from the position of the own vehicle and the position of the predetermined public facility searched, the car navigation function unit calculates the estimated travel time to the own vehicle).
23>Regarding Claim 24, Yamauchi discloses the replacement vehicle is arranged in response to an operation by the occupant on an emergency notification switch (transmitting unit 121) mounted on the vehicle ([0040] emergency vehicle from the above public facility is dispatched from the position of the own vehicle and the position of the predetermined public facility searched, the car navigation function unit calculates the estimated travel time to the own vehicle).
23>Regarding Claim 26, Yamauchi discloses the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the control device to serve as an information transfer unit configured to transmit information of the vehicle to the replacement vehicle for transfer by the occupant to the replacement vehicle for information takeover ([0040] the contact unit can automatically make and receive (call) this telephone…when an emergency vehicle from the above public facility is dispatched from the position of the own vehicle and the position of the predetermined public facility searched, the car navigation function unit calculates the estimated travel time to the own vehicle).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of LEE et al. (Lee; US 20220032905 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamauchi discloses the notification indicating the control state of the vehicle after the vehicle control is performed according to the collision includes: a notification indicating that movement of the vehicle has been restricted by brake activation ([0038] If it is determined in this step 208 that the vehicle cannot travel, the vehicle automatically stops at the collision position, [note: coming to a stop would illuminate the brake lights]), but doesn’t specify a notification indicating that a hazard light of the vehicle has been turned on.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses an autonomous driving control system including a strategy performing device that generates and performs a stop strategy of a vehicle on the basis of a target stop location, when a critical situation occurs during autonomous driving, a behavior controller that controls a behavior of the vehicle depending on the stop strategy, and an emergency module controller that runs a predetermined emergency module, when the critical situation occurs. The autonomous driving control system automatically runs a predetermined emergency module depending on a critical situation of collision. In an emergency a notification indicating that movement of the vehicle has been restricted by brake activation and a notification indicating that a hazard light of the vehicle has been turned on ([0015] The first emergency module may include at least one of a brake light, a hazard light or an exterior light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamauchi with Lee in order to provide supplemental warning notifications to alert passengers and traffic surrounding an accident of the dangerous situation.
Claims 9, 17 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Newman et al. (Newman; US 20180362033 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamauchi doesn’t specify the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification indicating a fire hazard possibility of the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Newman discloses a system with sensors to detect other vehicles, and computing means to evaluate when a collision is imminent and to determine whether the collision is avoidable. Newman discloses perform a notification indicating a fire hazard possibility of the vehicle ([0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamauchi with Newman in order to provide means for recognizing traffic hazards and for avoiding collisions automatically and for minimizing the harm or destructiveness of collisions when they are unavoidable. And provide a system that is adjustable by the driver to grant the level and type of intervention that the driver requires, as suggested by Newman ([0008]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamauchi doesn’t specify the notification control unit is further configured to perform a notification having an information amount changed depending on a state of an occupant at a time of the collision
Newman teaches performing a notification having an information amount changed depending on a state of an occupant at a time of the collision ([0069] To detect such an over-dependence situation, the system may require that the driver take some action periodically, such as turning the steering wheel or adjusting the throttle at least once every 10 or 20 seconds. If the driver fails to do so, the system may issue a sonic or visual alert, giving the driver another period, perhaps 2 to 5 seconds, to take some detectable action. If the driver again fails to do so, the system may deduce that the driver is incapacitated or at least distracted, and may pull to the side of the road, send a help message, or other action).
Regarding Claim 31, Yamauchi discloses the different object includes a plurality of different objects, and the traveling control device vehicle automatically stops at the collision position).
Newman teaches second processor components ([0224], Fig 19).
Regarding Claim 32, Yamauchi discloses the motion limitation unit limits a speed of the vehicle when an extent of the collision exceeds a preset extent ([0038] vehicle automatically stops at the collision position).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Ito (JP 2020161009 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamauchi doesn’t discloses the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the control device to serve as a request processing unit configured to require the vehicle to change a door lock state of the vehicle to a state where an occupant of the vehicle is not capable of manually releasing a door lock of the vehicle when the occupant is not required to urgently exit the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito discloses a control device for autonomous vehicles experiencing an accident, that changes a door lock state of the vehicle to a state where an occupant of the vehicle is not capable of manually releasing a door lock of the vehicle when the occupant is not required to urgently exit the vehicle ([0032] determines accident occurrence; [0038] When the door lock state switching process is started, it is determined whether or not the surroundings of the own vehicle are safe (step S210). Whether or not the surroundings of the own vehicle are safe is determined depending on the presence or absence of a vehicle approaching the own vehicle. When the control unit 12 determines that the surroundings of the own vehicle are not safe (step S210: NO), the control unit 12 instructs to maintain the door lock of the own vehicle (step S220). After that, the door lock state switching process is completed. When the control unit 12 determines that the surroundings of the own vehicle are safe (step S210: YES), the control unit 12 instructs to release the door lock of the own vehicle (step S230)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamauchi with Ito in order to protect a passenger from suddenly exiting into dangerous traffic, as suggested by Ito ([0038]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of KUROKAWA et al. (Kurokawa; US 20220266776 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamauchi doesn’t specify the information grasping unit is further configured to determine whether an emergency opening operation on an operation device of the vehicle has been performed, and the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the control device to serve as a request processing unit configured to require the vehicle to fully open a side window of the vehicle when the information grasping unit determines that the emergency opening operation has been performed.
In the same field of endeavor, Kurokawa discloses a vehicle control system includes a central ECU configured to generate control signals for devices, and relay devices each disposed in a communication path between the central ECU and a corresponding device.
Kurokawa discloses determine whether an emergency opening operation on an operation device of the vehicle has been performed, and the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the control device to serve as a request processing unit configured to require the vehicle to fully open a side window of the vehicle when the information grasping unit determines that the emergency opening operation has been performed ([0017] power window device is desirably set in an open state at the time of a collision of the vehicle, and an electric motor of the power window device is a device that is to operate with good responsiveness at the time of the collision of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith with Kurokawa in order to provide emergency exiting capabilities for passengers in case the vehicle door is unable to open.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of REN et al. (Ren; US 20150186714 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Yamauchi doesn’t teach the notification control unit is configured to perform a vehicle exterior notification that guides the different object that is a dynamic object for restarting traveling of the vehicle when the vehicle is capable of traveling after the collision.
In the same field of endeavor, Ren discloses a driver behavior monitoring system includes: a video camera; an image processing system; and a driver alert system. The video camera records the driver's behavior, and the image processing system analyzes the recorded video content to recognize and classify the driver's behavior as at least one of: (i) distracted behavior; and (ii) accident behavior. Based on the recognition and classification, the driver alert system may perform various operations such as alerting the driver, alerting the authorities.
Ren discloses performing a vehicle exterior notification that guides the different object that is a dynamic object for restarting traveling of the vehicle when the vehicle is capable of traveling after the collision ([0098] in the event of accident behavior (e.g., impact of head on steering wheel, airbag deployment, etc.) the driver alert system 104 may notify emergency responders of the accident behavior and the location of the vehicle. The driver alert system 104 may also alert other drivers nearby of the accident behavior so that they can reroute and/or be cautious when approaching the area by issuing a multicast alert via wireless communication multicast services, which are well-known).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamauchi with Ren in order to provide safety to surrounding traffic by alerting other drivers of the accident and allowing them to reroute or be cautious, as suggested by Ren ([0098]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19, 25, 27-30 and 33 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. ZHU (US 20210309215 A1) discloses a method first trajectory generated for a driving environment using control values allowed for a driving-by-wire system. If the trajectory includes a collision with an object, the ADV estimates the time of the collision and the relative speed between the ADV and the object at the time of the collision. A second trajectory is then generated for the driving environment using control values allowed for a human driver. The time of the collision and the relative speed between the ADV and the object at the time collision on the second trajectory are also estimated. The ADV then compares the two collision times and the two relative speeds, and based on the comparison, generates an alert message for the human driver to take over the control of the ADV.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights