DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 18-37 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/17/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to in lined through documents has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0002] “providing a an online” should read “providing an online.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 22, 24, 29, and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the connection" in “monitoring the connection.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the driver" in “prompting the driver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the immediate surroundings" in “data regarding the immediate surroundings.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 “method of claim 18, wherein, wherein:” should read “method of claim 18, wherein:”
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the connection" in “monitoring the connection.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the driver" in “prompting the driver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the immediate surroundings" in “data regarding the immediate surroundings.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 18, 21-23, 28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by An et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0115281 A1 (hereinafter An).
Regarding claim 18, An discloses a method for operating a vehicle which has an established level of automation (see at least An Fig. 8), comprising:
starting an online navigation system with a level of automation which is higher than the level of automation of the vehicle (see at least An [0061]: “The route server-based maximum autonomous driving preference global route planning step S100 plans a global route so that a route server has as many sections as possible of autonomous driving.”);
ascertaining, retrieving, and displaying available geographic zones in which navigation with a higher level of automation is available (see at least An [0097]: “The autonomous driving system monitors in real-time which automation level is currently possible (that is, L2, L3, L4 conditions) and displays an automation level, which is possible in the current driving situation, through the HMI.”);
upon determining that the vehicle is located in a geographic zone in which navigation with the higher level of automation is available, activating the online navigation system having a higher level of automation (see at least An [0061]: “The route server-based maximum autonomous driving preference global route planning step S100 plans a global route so that a route server has as many sections as possible of autonomous driving…The vehicle-based dynamic automation level autonomous driving execution step S200 is a step in which an autonomous vehicle dynamically changes an automation level according to a driving situation monitoring result and maximally maintains autonomous driving while driving along the global route received from the route server.”);
and starting navigation of the vehicle with the higher level of automation using data of the online navigation system (see at least An [0117]: “When the autonomous driving is possible, the autonomous driving system detects a change in the automation level, and performs an autonomous driving operation suitable for a state transition and each automation level when there is a change in the automation level (S207).”).
Regarding claim 21, An discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising:
ascertaining a route to a defined destination that maximizes and/or optimizes a use of the navigation with a higher level of automation (see at least An [0061]: “The route server-based maximum autonomous driving preference global route planning step S100 plans a global route so that a route server has as many sections as possible of autonomous driving.”).
Regarding claim 22, An discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising:
transmitting to the online navigation system current data regarding the immediate surroundings of the vehicle collected by the vehicle (see at least An [0027]: “According to the present disclosure, a route setting server sets a driving route to a predicted section where autonomous driving is maximally possible before the start of driving by utilizing operational design domain determination information (weather information, construction information, and the like), ascertains in real-time weather information of a current driving location by utilizing an infrastructure edge road side unit (RSU) or a weather sensor installed in a vehicle, and performs dynamic change to an accurate automation level, thereby obtaining the effect of safely continuing autonomous driving.”).
Regarding claim 23, An discloses the method of claim 18, wherein:
the vehicle is provided with data for navigating the vehicle with the higher level of automation, which data have been adapted to the vehicle by the online navigation system (see at least An [0070]: “The automation level for each link in the route server-based maximum autonomous driving preference global route planning step S100 is an expected automation level determined only using information in the route server, which may change as the autonomous vehicle actually drives on the road.”).
Regarding claim 28, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 18. An also discloses a system for performing the method of claim 18 as outlined in the rejection to claim 18 above. Specifically, An discloses the presence of a control device (An [0131]) that performs the method of claim 18. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 18.
Regarding claim 31, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 21 as explained above. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 21.
Regarding claim 32, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 22 as explained above. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 22.
Regarding claim 33, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 23 as explained above. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 19-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Rajanna, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0118478 A1.
Regarding claim 19, An discloses all elements of the method according to claim 18 as explained above. An fails to expressly disclose monitoring a connection to the online navigation system and prompting the driver to take over vehicle control when the connection is interrupted. However, Rajanna teaches
monitoring the connection to the online navigation system (see at least Rajanna [0028]: “Status indicator 124 may represent an indication or suggestion to one or more occupants of vehicle 100 whether to disconnect from one or more wireless networks of vehicle 100 (e.g., whether the occupant should select option 122), or may be used to automatically disconnect from certain wireless networks.”; [0059]-[0060]: “At 604, the control circuitry may cause the vehicle (e.g., vehicle 100 of FIG. 1) to be disconnected from the compromised wireless network associated with the selection received at 602…In some embodiments, if the vehicle is connected to multiple networks, the control circuitry may determine whether any of the multiple networks are likely to be compromised, such as by analyzing data packets received over each network, and determining whether network traffic is irregular as compared to normal network traffic conditions, where information concerning normal network traffic conditions may be stored at storage 534 of vehicle 530 and/or server 504.”);
upon the connection being interrupted, prompting the driver of the vehicle to take over the control of the vehicle according to the level of automation of the vehicle; and terminating and/or deactivating the navigation of the vehicle with the higher level of automation (see at least Rajanna [0030]: “In some embodiments, the remedial action may comprise the vehicle security application causing a message 304 to be generated for output (e.g., via display and/or audio alerts) instructing a user to manually operate vehicle 100 (e.g., if the vehicle was previously operating in an autonomous manner which may be desirable to exit, or if the vehicle is no longer capable of operating in the autonomous manner now that the wireless network has been disconnected), and may be accompanied by providing navigation route 302 to the vehicle occupant, such as shown in connection with illustrated example of FIG. 3.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by An with Rajanna with reasonable expectation of success. Rajanna is directed towards the related field of performing remedial action when a wireless network of a vehicle is compromised. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify An with Rajanna to improve safety (see at least Rajanna [0002]-[0004]: “While network-connected vehicles offer many benefits, networks are vulnerable to cyberattacks by bad actors, which may compromise the network of the vehicle. If such network is compromised, there is a risk not only of damage to the vehicle but also of personal harm to occupants of the vehicle and others…To overcome these problems, systems and methods are provided herein for receiving a user selection indicating that a wireless network of a vehicle has been compromised, and in response to receiving the user selection, causing the vehicle to be disconnected from the compromised wireless network. While the vehicle is disconnected from the compromised wireless network, a remedial action to enable the vehicle to navigate from a current location of the vehicle to a safe location is performed.”).
Regarding claim 20, An in view of Rajanna teach all elements of the method according to claim 19 as explained above. An discloses the method further comprising:
upon ascertaining that the driver does not take over the control, starting at least one established emergency maneuver (see at least An [0095]: “A minimum risk maneuver (MRM) refers to a state in which a minimum risk maneuver, such as an emergency stop or shoulder stop, is performed when a driver accepts no control transfer request.”; [0101]: “When the driver accepts the driving control transfer request (TOS condition), the system transfers the state of the vehicle to a manual driving state, and when the driver does not accept the driving control transfer request (TOF condition), the system transfers the state of the vehicle to the minimum risk maneuver state.”).
Regarding claim 29, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 19 as explained above. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 19.
Regarding claim 30, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 20 as explained above. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 20.
Claims 24-26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Kourous-Harrigan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0365029 A1 (hereinafter Kourous-Harrigan).
Regarding claim 24, An discloses all elements of the method according to claim 18 as explained above. An further discloses wherein:
data from vehicles and infrastructure sensors are transmitted to an online streaming platform (see at least An [0027]: “According to the present disclosure, a route setting server sets a driving route to a predicted section where autonomous driving is maximally possible before the start of driving by utilizing operational design domain determination information (weather information, construction information, and the like), ascertains in real-time weather information of a current driving location by utilizing an infrastructure edge road side unit (RSU) or a weather sensor installed in a vehicle, and performs dynamic change to an accurate automation level, thereby obtaining the effect of safely continuing autonomous driving.”)
An fails to expressly disclose generating dynamic occupancy maps. However, Kourous-Harrigan teaches
dynamic occupancy maps are generated on the basis of the transmitted data; and the generated dynamic occupancy maps are provided to a vehicle for use (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0022]: “FIG. 1 illustrates an example system 100 for the use of shared sensor data to build dynamic occupancy grids 116 for cooperative maneuvers with connected vehicles 102 in environments with uncooperative or unconnected vehicles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by An with Kourous-Harrigan with reasonable expectation of success. Kourous-Harrigan is directed towards the related field of building dynamic occupancy grids for cooperative maneuvers with connected vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify An with Kourous-Harrigan to increase situational awareness reliability (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0018]-[0020]: “However, in absence of complete penetration of connected vehicles, these maneuvers must be made with non-cooperative or non-connected vehicles which cannot participate in the wireless conversation about intent or consensus around conflicting maneuvers. Reliable situational awareness may be difficult to achieve in a mixed environment of connected vehicles and non-connected vehicles. Therefore, cooperative maneuvers may be limited to environments including only connected vehicles, a situation which is not practically achievable in the near term…Connected vehicles can increase the reliability and utility of cooperative maneuvers by sharing data about their immediate surroundings.”).
Regarding claim 25, An in view of Kourous-Harrigan teach all elements of the method according to claim 24 as explained above. Kourous-Harrigan teaches the method further comprising:
generating global dynamic occupancy map based on the transmitted data (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0021]: “A shared representation of dynamic objects can be developed, added to, and subtracted from, by the connected observing agents.”; [0058]: “The vehicles 102 and infrastructure may be configured to send sensor data and/or the tabular information of the dynamic occupancy grid 116 to one another in a distributed synchronized approach.”);
generating, based on the generated global dynamic occupancy map, local dynamic occupancy maps and/or geographic zones in which navigation with a certain level of automation is available; and providing the generated local dynamic occupancy maps and/or geographic zones to the vehicle (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0057]: “At fixed time intervals, the local dynamic occupancy grid 116 may be updated, or optimized, by the vehicle 102.”; [0068]: “In an example, the logic unit 104 may compare the received data to the obstacle table 812 maintained by the vehicle 102 specifying the listed objects previously identified by the vehicle 102 according to local or received data.”; Kourous-Harrigan teaches at least local dynamic occupancy maps).
Regarding claim 26, An in view of Kourous-Harrigan teach all elements of the method according to claim 24 as explained above. Kourous-Harrigan teaches the method further comprising:
generating global dynamic occupancy map based on the transmitted data (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0021]: “A shared representation of dynamic objects can be developed, added to, and subtracted from, by the connected observing agents.”; [0058]: “The vehicles 102 and infrastructure may be configured to send sensor data and/or the tabular information of the dynamic occupancy grid 116 to one another in a distributed synchronized approach.”);
ascertaining collaborative traffic rules based on the generated global dynamic occupancy map; and data regarding the ascertained collaborative traffic rules are provided to a vehicle for use (see at least Kourous-Harrigan [0054]: “Moreover, by incorporating received SAE J2735 MAP messages into the data of the dynamic occupancy grid 116, vehicles 102 may be able to calculate allowed maneuvers of the observed objects in certain areas (intersections). This could be considered an extended attribute of that object at that time, which could be used when calculating risks of collaborative maneuvers. The values in the grid cells of the dynamic occupancy grid 116 may therefore also represent pending or active traffic maneuvers, based on intents shared by other actors. This data may be based on intents shared by other actors.”; [0077]: “Next, at operation 908, the logic unit 104 determines whether some of the space for the maneuver is indicated as being occupied in the dynamic occupancy grid 116…If, at operation 912, one of these occupants is a connected vehicle 102, then control passes to operation 914 to initiate a maneuver request with the other connected vehicle 102. The connected vehicles 102 may accordingly make an affirmative decision regarding use of the required space. For instance, the connected vehicles 102 occupying the space may move out of the way to allow the maneuver to be completed. With respect to the initiation of a maneuver request among connected vehicles 102, it should be noted that a cooperative maneuver involving multiple vehicles requires positive agreement on the part of all affected observers and participants that the maneuver can be performed.”).
Regarding claim 34, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 24 as explained above. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 24.
Regarding claim 35, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 25 as explained above. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 25.
Regarding claim 36, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 26 as explained above. Therefore, claim 36 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 26.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Kourous-Harrigan, and further in view of Quirynen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0050192 A1 (hereinafter Quirynen).
Regarding claim 27, An in view of Kourous-Harrigan teach all elements of the method according to claim 24 as explained above. An in view of Kourous-Harrigan fail to expressly disclose data from vehicles and infrastructure sensors are fused simultaneously and/or in parallel. However, Quirynen teaches
data from vehicles and infrastructure sensors transmitted to the online streaming platform are fused simultaneously and/or in parallel (see at least Quirynen [0079]: “Real-time sensor fusion and estimation using on-board and infrastructure sensing information can be performed in each vehicle, e.g., 414, in order to provide feedback to the higher-level algorithms for decision making, motion planning and control.”; [0078]: “FIG. 4A shows a schematic diagram of a feedback loop for the global multi-vehicle decision making system 300 that computes a motion plan that is provided to the multi-layer guidance and control architecture for each individual CAV 1, 2, . . . , n, given real-time information from the infrastructure sensing 401, the centralized mapping and navigation module 405 and the on-board sensors 414, 424 and 434 of each individual CAV 410, 420 and 430.”; Quirynen teaches data is fused simultaneously and/or in parallel because sensor fusion is performed in real-time and is centralized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by An in view of Kourous-Harrigan with Quirynen with reasonable expectation of success. Quirynen is directed towards the related field of optimization-based global multi-vehicle decision making and motion planning. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify An in view of Kourous-Harrigan with Quirynen to perform coordination with a global multi-vehicle module rather than each vehicle separately determining a motion plan (see at least Quirynen [0012]-[0013]: “Differently from fully autonomous vehicles, embodiments of the invention are based on the realization that, for the case of CAVs, the target behavior for the motion planning algorithm should not be computed separately for each vehicle by an on-board decision making algorithm, but rather for all vehicles at the same time in a global multi-vehicle decision making module. Specifically, given real-time information on the environment from the mapping and navigation module, e.g., real-time state and routing information for each of the CAVs in a local area of multiple interconnected conflict zones, the global multi-vehicle decision making module determines the target behaviors for all CAVs in that local area, at the same time. Note that the routing information for each CAV may be computed by a centralized mapping and navigation module or by an on-board mapping and navigation module in each local CAV individually. Embodiments of the invention perform coordination and scheduling for vehicles within a network of road segments, consisting of one or multiple road segments that are conflict zones and one or multiple road segments that are conflict-free zones.”).
Regarding claim 37, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 27 as explained above. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 27.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poulet et al., U.S. Patent No. 12673701 B2, directed towards drive mode selection and determining transition points along a route.
Huemer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0098737 A1, directed towards determining an availability of a driver assistance function for each driving route and selecting a route with maximum availability of the driver assistance function.
Choi et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0416964 A1, directed towards situation-based autonomous driving mode control.
Hasegawa, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0157968 A1, directed towards transitioning a driving control mode along a route based on an automated driving possible region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
