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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 – 5, 9 – 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2 – 4 should read “the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether at least [[an]]the occupant as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle;” because the limitation “an occupant” was previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 4, line 2 – 4 should read “the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether at least [[an]]the occupant as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle;” because the limitation “an occupant” was previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 5, line 2 – 4 should read “the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether at least [[an]]the occupant as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle;”
Claim 9, line 2- 11 should read “the service vehicle transports [[an]]the occupant as the transport target, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; … the service vehicle transports [[a]]the baggage as the transport target, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle.” because the limitations “an occupant” and “a baggage” were previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 10, line 1 – 3 should read “the vehicle control device according to claim 1 that can be used for the service vehicle that transports [[a]]the baggage as the transport target,” because the limitation “a baggage” was previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 11, line 2 – 4 should read “the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether each of [[an]]the occupant and [[a]]the baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle;” because the limitations “an occupant” and “a baggage” were previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 12, line 2 – 4 should read “the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether each of [[an]]the occupant and [[a]]the baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle;” because the limitations “an occupant” and “a baggage” were previously introduced in claim 1, line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transport target specifying unit”, “allowance degree change unit”, “vehicle compartment notification processing unit”, “vehicle outside notification processing unit”, “anomaly detection unit”, “center communication instruction unit”, “light color estimation unit” as recited in claims 1 – 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “transport target specifying unit”, “allowance degree change unit”, “vehicle compartment notification processing unit”, “vehicle outside notification processing unit”, “anomaly detection unit”, “center communication instruction unit” are described as part of the ECU 10f (fig. 17).
The “light color estimation unit” is described as part of the ECU 10g (fig. 19).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 17 – 22, 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device that can be used in a service vehicle that transports a transport target as a service using autonomous driving, the vehicle control device comprising:
a transport target specifying unit that specifies whether at least one of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; and
an allowance degree change unit that changes a driving allowance degree, which is a range of a driving control of the service vehicle allowed in the autonomous driving, according to a specified result by the transport target specifying unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitation “specifies whether at least one of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle” encompasses a person using observation and judgment to determine whether an occupant or baggage is disposed in the vehicle. Further, the limitation “change a driving allowance degree …” is directed to a decision-making process for determining a range of driving control based on the specified result. Accordingly, these limitations recite mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgment, and therefore constitute an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
A vehicle control device that can be used in a service vehicle that transports a transport target as a service using autonomous driving, the vehicle control device comprising:
a transport target specifying unit that specifies whether at least one of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; and
an allowance degree change unit that changes a driving allowance degree, which is a range of a driving control of the service vehicle allowed in the autonomous driving, according to a specified result by the transport target specifying unit.
In the present case, the additional limitations of “a transport target specifying unit” and “an allowance degree change unit” are recited at a high generality and are directed to generic computer performing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations that provide inventive concept.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 17 – 22, 25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 17 – 22, 25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
The analysis of claim 26 is similar to the analysis of claim 1 above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 13, 15, 17 – 22, 25 – 26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koehler et al. (Publication No. US 20210171066 A1; hereinafter Koehler).
Regarding to claim 1, Koehler teaches A vehicle control device that can be used in a service vehicle that transports a transport target as a service using autonomous driving, ([Par. 0004], “In the method according to an example embodiment of the present invention for controlling an
autonomously driving passenger transport vehicle, a driving behavior of the passenger transport vehicle is adapted to an ascertained passenger situation.”) the vehicle control device comprising:
a transport target specifying unit that specifies whether at least one of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; ([Par. 0006], “A device, for example in the form of a camera, monitors the passenger compartment of the shuttle during operation. An instantaneously present passenger situation may be ascertained with the aid of an evaluation device. If no passengers are in the shuttle, this is identified, and the shuttle may thus dispense entirely with comfortable driving, and thereby arrive at the destination more quickly or more efficiently. When a passenger enters and selects his or her place, it is identified via the device what needs the passenger possibly has. If multiple passengers are on board, the driving behavior is adapted according to the identified needs of all passengers. The ascertained needs are interpreted, and corresponding measures are defined, or a suitable driving behavior is selected. One possible measure is, for example, slower smooth driving all the way to stopping of the automated driving vehicle.”) and
an allowance degree change unit that changes a driving allowance degree, which is a range of a driving control of the service vehicle allowed in the autonomous driving, according to a specified result by the transport target specifying unit. ([Par. 0008], “Such a method furthermore enhances the safety since, e.g. standing people, elderly people, or people in wheelchairs, are accelerated less strongly in the vehicle due to, e.g., gentler accelerations and brake applications, or lower curve speeds, and, e.g., falls or rolling away is/are prevented. Moreover, a faster advancement during empty trips, i.e., trips without passengers, is achieved by such a method. This results in a higher efficiency of the vehicle. An adapted driving behavior of the automated vehicle also increases the acceptance of automated vehicles without a driver since they move in the traffic situation in a way that is pleasant for the passengers.”)
Regarding to claim 2, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Sadeghi further teaches the allowance degree change unit widens the driving allowance degree when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle. ([Par. 0008], “Such a method furthermore enhances the safety since, e.g. standing people, elderly people, or people in wheelchairs, are accelerated less strongly in the vehicle due to, e.g., gentler accelerations and brake applications, or lower curve speeds, and, e.g., falls or rolling away is/are prevented. Moreover, a faster advancement during empty trips, i.e., trips without passengers, is achieved by such a method. This results in a higher efficiency of the vehicle. An adapted driving behavior of the automated vehicle also increases the acceptance of automated vehicles without a driver since they move in the traffic situation in a way that is pleasant for the passengers.”)
Regarding to claim 25, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler further teaches further comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor having a memory storing computer program code, ([Par. 0028], “in accordance with the present invention, a computer program product or computer program is advantageous, having program code which may be stored on a machine-readable carrier or memory medium such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk memory or an optical memory, and which is used to carry out, implement and/or activate the steps of the method according to one of the specific embodiments described above, in particular if the program product or program is executed on a computer or a device.”)
wherein: the at least one of the circuit and the processor having the memory is configured to cause the vehicle control device to provide at least one of: the transport target specifying unit; and the allowance degree change unit. ([Par. 0028], “in accordance with the present invention, a computer program product or computer program is advantageous, having program code which may be stored on a machine-readable carrier or memory medium such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk memory or an optical memory, and which is used to carry out, implement and/or activate the steps of the method according to one of the specific embodiments described above, in particular if the program product or program is executed on a computer or a device.”; [Par. 0008], “Such a method furthermore enhances the safety since, e.g. standing people, elderly people, or people in wheelchairs, are accelerated less strongly in the vehicle due to, e.g., gentler accelerations and brake applications, or lower curve speeds, and, e.g., falls or rolling away is/are prevented. Moreover, a faster advancement during empty trips, i.e., trips without passengers, is achieved by such a method. This results in a higher efficiency of the vehicle. An adapted driving behavior of the automated vehicle also increases the acceptance of automated vehicles without a driver since they move in the traffic situation in a way that is pleasant for the passengers.”)
Claim 26 recites a vehicle control method with substantially similar scope to claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Koehler further teaches the vehicle control method, executed by at least one processor, ([Par. 0028], “in accordance with the present invention, a computer program product or computer program is advantageous, having program code which may be stored on a machine-readable carrier or memory medium such as a semiconductor memory, a hard disk memory or an optical memory, and which is used to carry out, implement and/or activate the steps of the method according to one of the specific embodiments described above, in particular if the program product or program is executed on a computer or a device.”)
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.
Claim(s) 3, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler in view of Sadeghi et al. (Publication No. US 20190324458 A1; hereinafter Sadeghi).
Regarding to claim 3, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler further teaches the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether at least an occupant as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; ([Par. 0006], “A device, for example in the form of a camera, monitors the passenger compartment of the shuttle during operation. An instantaneously present passenger situation may be ascertained with the aid of an evaluation device. If no passengers are in the shuttle, this is identified, and the shuttle may thus dispense entirely with comfortable driving, and thereby arrive at the destination more quickly or more efficiently. When a passenger enters and selects his or her place, it is identified via the device what needs the passenger possibly has. If multiple passengers are on board, the driving behavior is adapted according to the identified needs of all passengers. The ascertained needs are interpreted, and corresponding measures are defined, or a suitable driving behavior is selected. One possible measure is, for example, slower smooth driving all the way to stopping of the automated driving vehicle.”)
the allowance degree change unit narrows the driving allowance degree when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the occupant is in the service vehicle, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the monitoring driver is not disposed and the passenger is not disposed in the service vehicle. ([Par. 0008], “Such a method furthermore enhances the safety since, e.g. standing people, elderly people, or people in wheelchairs, are accelerated less strongly in the vehicle due to, e.g., gentler accelerations and brake applications, or lower curve speeds, and, e.g., falls or rolling away is/are prevented. Moreover, a faster advancement during empty trips, i.e., trips without passengers, is achieved by such a method. This results in a higher efficiency of the vehicle. An adapted driving behavior of the automated vehicle also increases the acceptance of automated vehicles without a driver since they move in the traffic situation in a way that is pleasant for the passengers.”)
Koehler teaches adjusting autonomous driving level based on detection of presence of occupant in the service vehicle as described above but does not explicitly disclose the transport target specifying unit specifies the occupant by distinguishing whether each of a monitoring driver and a passenger as the occupant of the service vehicle is disposed in the service vehicle;
However, Sadeghi teaches the transport target specifying unit specifies the occupant by distinguishing whether each of a monitoring driver and a passenger as the occupant of the service vehicle is disposed in the service vehicle; ([Par. 0032], “the input analyzer may increase the aggressiveness level of the autonomous vehicle100 when the operator of the autonomous vehicle 100 is in the autonomous vehicle 100 alone and may decrease the aggressiveness level of the autonomous vehicle 100 when other passengers are present. In such examples, the input analyzer 206 increases or decreases the aggressiveness level by adjusting several parameters of the autonomous driving software, such as speed relative to a speed limit, acceleration rates, following distance, passing distance (e.g., distance after passing another vehicle that that autonomous vehicle 100 returns to its original lane), braking distance, and/or other driving characteristics.”) and
Sadeghi teaches adjusting the aggressiveness level of an autonomous vehicle based on the presence of passengers in the vehicle (para. [0032]). In particular, Sadeghi teaches increasing the aggressiveness level when only the driver is onboard and decreasing the aggressiveness level when other passengers are onboard. Koehler similarly teaches adjusting autonomous driving behavior based on the presence of occupants in the vehicle and teaches that a more restrictive driving behavior is used when an occupant is present, whereas a more aggressive driving behavior may be used when the vehicle is empty. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of Sadeghi and Koehler, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the driving allowance degree may be adjusted according to the particular occupants present in the vehicle. Specifically, when both the driver and passenger are onboard, a relatively narrow driving allowance degree is provided for the safety and comfort of both occupants. When only the driver is onboard, the driving allowance degree may be widened relative to when a passenger is also onboard, as taught by Sadeghi, while should remaining narrower than when neither the driver nor passenger is onboard because the safety and comfort of the remaining driver still need to be considered. When neither the driver nor passenger is onboard, the driving allowance degree may be further widened because occupant-related safety and comfort restrictions are no longer required, as taught by Koehler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Sadeghi. The modification would have been obvious because adjusting the autonomous driving behavior based on the presence of the driver and passenger would enable the vehicle to provide an appropriate driving behavior for the occupants onboard, thereby improving the safety and comfort of the occupants.
Regarding to claim 22, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches to detect passenger onboard of the vehicle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the transport target specifying unit can specify whether the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle, according to a selection input indicating whether the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle, which is received via an user input device that receives an input from an user of the service vehicle.
However, Sadeghi teaches wherein: the transport target specifying unit can specify whether the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle, according to a selection input indicating whether the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle, which is received via an user input device that receives an input from an user of the service vehicle. ([Par. 0024], “When the inputs from the sensors 104 and the driver interface 106 are received by the controller 102, the controller 102 can determine adjustments to the autonomous driving software based on a value or values of the inputs. For example, the inputs can have numerical values (e.g., a desired speed of driving), a binary value (e.g., a yes or no input, such as whether an infant is in the autonomous vehicle 100), etc. Additionally or alternatively, the input can be qualitative, such as a determination that a passenger or operator of the autonomous vehicle 100 is gesturing or has a specific expression on their face (e.g., anger, fright, etc.). These inputs can be used individually or in combination by the controller 102 to determine adjustments to the autonomous driving software.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Sadeghi. The modification would have been obvious because adjusting the autonomous driving behavior based on the presence of the driver and passenger would enable the vehicle to provide an appropriate driving behavior for the occupants onboard, thereby improving the safety and comfort of the occupants.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koehler and Sadeghi in view of Kang et al. (English Translation of KR102200803B1; hereinafter Kang).
Regarding to claim 5, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler further teaches the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether at least an occupant as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; ([Par. 0006], “A device, for example in the form of a camera, monitors the passenger compartment of the shuttle during operation. An instantaneously present passenger situation may be ascertained with the aid of an evaluation device. If no passengers are in the shuttle, this is identified, and the shuttle may thus dispense entirely with comfortable driving, and thereby arrive at the destination more quickly or more efficiently. When a passenger enters and selects his or her place, it is identified via the device what needs the passenger possibly has. If multiple passengers are on board, the driving behavior is adapted according to the identified needs of all passengers. The ascertained needs are interpreted, and corresponding measures are defined, or a suitable driving behavior is selected. One possible measure is, for example, slower smooth driving all the way to stopping of the automated driving vehicle.”)
Koehler teaches determining whether an occupant is present in the vehicle as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the transport target specifying unit specifies the occupant by distinguishing whether each of a monitoring driver and a passenger as the occupant of the service vehicle is disposed in the service vehicle;
However, Sadeghi teaches the transport target specifying unit specifies the occupant by distinguishing whether each of a monitoring driver and a passenger as the occupant of the service vehicle is disposed in the service vehicle; ([Par. 0032], “the input analyzer may increase the aggressiveness level of the autonomous vehicle100 when the operator of the autonomous vehicle 100 is in the autonomous vehicle 100 alone and may decrease the aggressiveness level of the autonomous vehicle 100 when other passengers are present. In such examples, the input analyzer 206 increases or decreases the aggressiveness level by adjusting several parameters of the autonomous driving software, such as speed relative to a speed limit, acceleration rates, following distance, passing distance (e.g., distance after passing another vehicle that that autonomous vehicle 100 returns to its original lane), braking distance, and/or other driving characteristics.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Sadeghi. The modification would have been obvious because adjusting the autonomous driving behavior based on the presence of the driver and passenger would enable the vehicle to provide an appropriate driving behavior for the occupants onboard, thereby improving the safety and comfort of the occupants.
The combination of Koehler and Sadeghi teaches to distinguish whether a driver and a passenger are disposed in the vehicle as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the allowance degree change unit makes an emergency brake easier to be executed when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the monitoring driver is not disposed and the passenger is not disposed in the service vehicle, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that at least one of the monitoring driver and the passenger is disposed in the service vehicle.
Kang teaches ([Par. 0010], “The above control unit can differentiate the braking force during emergency braking according to a preset weight if there is at least one passenger belonging to a risk group among the passengers when emergency stopping is required due to the possibility of a collision with a pedestrian.”; [Par. 0018 – 0020], “The above control unit can maximize the braking force during emergency braking if all the passengers belong to the non-danger group when emergency stopping is required due to the possibility of collision with a soft obstacle or a movable obstacle.[0019]The above control unit can reduce the braking force by 30% if there is at least one passenger in the risk group among the passengers when emergency stopping is required due to the possibility of collision with a soft obstacle or a movable obstacle. [0020]The above control unit can maximize the braking force during emergency braking if all the passengers belong to the non-danger group when emergency stopping is required due to the possibility of collision with a hard obstacle or an immovable obstacle.” This disclosure implies that the emergency brake of the autonomous service vehicle is adjusted based on passenger’s condition in the vehicle. The emergency brake is more intensive if the passenger is among a risk group and less intensive if the passenger is among a non-risk group.)
The limitation “the allowance degree change unit makes an emergency brake easier to be executed when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the monitoring driver is not disposed and the passenger is not disposed in the service vehicle, compared to when the transport target specifying unit specifies that at least one of the monitoring driver and the passenger is disposed in the service vehicle.” is obvious in view of the combination of Koehler, Sadeghi and Kang. Specifically, Kang teaches adjusting the emergency braking of an autonomous vehicle based on the condition of the occupants in the vehicle, wherein a stronger emergency braking force is permitted when the occupants are less susceptible to injury from the emergency braking, while the emergency braking force is reduced when an occupant is at risk of injury. Koehler teaches that when no occupant is present in an autonomous vehicle, restrictions associated with the safety and comfort of the occupants may be relaxed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the autonomous vehicle control of the combination of Koehler and Sadeghi in view of Kang to make emergency braking easier when neither the driver nor passenger is onboard because, in the absence of occupants, a stronger emergency braking operation can be permitted without concern for injury or discomfort to the occupants, thereby enabling the vehicle to more effectively avoid or mitigate a collision.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koehler in view of Dulgar et al. (Publication No. US 20220254256 A1; hereinafter Dulgar).
Regarding to claim 6, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches adjusting autonomous driving behavior of the vehicle based on presence of the passengers in the vehicle. ([Par. 0006], “A device, for example in the form of a camera, monitors the passenger compartment of the shuttle during operation. An instantaneously present passenger situation may be ascertained with the aid of an evaluation device. If no passengers are in the shuttle, this is identified, and the shuttle may thus dispense entirely with comfortable driving, and thereby arrive at the destination more quickly or more efficiently. When a passenger enters and selects his or her place, it is identified via the device what needs the passenger possibly has. If multiple passengers are on board, the driving behavior is adapted according to the identified needs of all passengers. The ascertained needs are interpreted, and corresponding measures are defined, or a suitable driving behavior is selected. One possible measure is, for example, slower smooth driving all the way to stopping of the automated driving vehicle.”)
Dulgar teaches, [Par. 0019], “In an automatic, in particular highly automatic or autonomous operation of the vehicle 1, it is important that the vehicle 1 changes from the slip road ES to the lane of traffic FS1 at the correct merging position EP. During a merging process, there must not be any danger to either the vehicle 1and its occupants or other road users. Furthermore, the merging process should take place in such a way that, during it, as great a degree of comfort as possible is achieved for occupants of the vehicle 1.”)
The mapping is explained as Koehler teaches adjusting the autonomous driving behavior of a vehicle based on the presence of a passenger. In particular, when a passenger is present, the driving behavior is adapted to provide greater safety and comfort to the passenger, whereas when no passenger is present, the vehicle may employ a more aggressive driving behavior because passenger-related safety and comfort considerations are not required (par. 0006]). Dülgar further teaches that, when an autonomous vehicle performs a lane-change maneuver, the safety and comfort of the occupants should be taken into consideration. In particular, Dülgar teaches that, during an autonomous merging process, there should not be any danger to the vehicle or its occupants and that the merging process should provide as great a degree of comfort as possible for the occupants (para. [0019]). Dülgar further recognizes that the autonomous vehicle may perform a merging and/or overtaking process (para. [0020]). In view of the combined teachings of Koehler and Dülgar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Koehler's passenger-dependent driving behavior to the overtaking lane-change behavior recognized by Dülgar, such that “the allowance degree change unit does not allow a lane change for overtaking another vehicle by the service vehicle when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; and the allowance degree change unit allows the lane change for overtaking another vehicle by the service vehicle when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle”.
Such a modification would have been an obvious implementation of Koehler's teaching of providing more restrictive driving behavior when a passenger is present to promote passenger safety and comfort, while relaxing such a restriction when no passenger is present and passenger-related safety and comfort considerations are not required.
Claim(s) 8, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koehler in view of Akita, Akira (Publication No. US 20200231183 A1; hereinafter Akita).
Regarding to claim 8, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches controlling the autonomous service vehicle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a vehicle outside notification processing unit that controls a vehicle outside notification device for issuing a notification toward a vehicle outside of the service vehicle, wherein: the vehicle outside notification processing unit controls the vehicle outside notification device to issue the notification indicating that the service vehicle is travelling in the autonomous driving without a transport target when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle.
However, Akita teaches further comprising: a vehicle outside notification processing unit that controls a vehicle outside notification device for issuing a notification toward a vehicle outside of the service vehicle, ([Par. 0279], “causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle, a message including cautions in the determined travelling mode for the (N+1)-th travelling section for the following autonomous vehicle in step S34. For example, the controller 27 causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle”) wherein:
the vehicle outside notification processing unit controls the vehicle outside notification device to issue the notification indicating that the service vehicle is travelling in the autonomous driving without a transport target when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle. ([Par. 0139], “the controller 27 compares the sum of the first and second numbers A and B with the number of all seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle to thereby determine whether there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle assuming that the longitudinal-vibration and lateral-vibration sensitive occupants are seated on corresponding seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle.”; [Par. 0293], “The controller 27 determines whether there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle based on the reservation information about all of the riding occupants on the corresponding autonomous vehicle and the number of seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle. The controller 27 causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle, information representing that there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Akita. The modification would have been obvious because displaying an indication on an exterior display that the vehicle is empty would enable persons outside the vehicle to readily recognize that the vehicle is available for service and/or that seating is available for passengers.
Regarding to claim 24, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches controlling the autonomous service vehicle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the service vehicle is equipped with a transparent display device on a window of the service vehicle as at least a part of a vehicle outside notification unit that issues a notification toward an outside of the service vehicle, the vehicle control device further comprising: a vehicle outside notification processing unit that controls the vehicle outside notification unit, wherein: when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle, the vehicle outside notification unit controls the transparent display to display an advertisement.
However, Akita teaches wherein: the service vehicle is equipped with a transparent display device on a window of the service vehicle as at least a part of a vehicle outside notification unit that issues a notification toward an outside of the service vehicle, ([Par. 0279], “causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle, a message including cautions in the determined travelling mode for the (N+1)-th travelling section for the following autonomous vehicle in step S34. For example, the controller 27 causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle”)
the vehicle control device further comprising: a
vehicle outside notification processing unit that controls the vehicle outside notification unit, wherein:
when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle, the vehicle outside notification unit controls the transparent display to display an advertisement.
([Par. 0139], “the controller 27 compares the sum of the first and second numbers A and B with the number of all seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle to thereby determine whether there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle assuming that the longitudinal-vibration and lateral-vibration sensitive occupants are seated on corresponding seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle.”; [Par. 0293], “The controller 27 determines whether there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle based on the reservation information about all of the riding occupants on the corresponding autonomous vehicle and the number of seats in the corresponding autonomous vehicle. The controller 27 causes the notifying unit 26 to notify, through its liquid crystal display device located outside the body of the corresponding autonomous vehicle, information representing that there is at least one empty seat in the corresponding autonomous vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Akita. The modification would have been obvious because displaying an indication on an exterior display that the vehicle is empty would enable persons outside the vehicle to readily recognize that the vehicle is available for service and/or that seating is available for passengers.
Claim(s) 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koehler in view of Murakami et al. (Publication No. US 20200298889 A1; hereinafter Murakami).
Regarding to claim 10, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches adjusting the autonomous driving level based on presence of the passenger in the vehicle as described in claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose The vehicle control device according to claim 1 that can be used for the service vehicle that transports a baggage as the transport target, the vehicle control device further comprising: a baggage information acquisition unit that acquires baggage information relating to a precaution for transporting the baggage to be transported, wherein: the allowance degree change unit changes the driving allowance degree in accordance with the baggage information acquired by the baggage information acquisition unit.
However, Murakami teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1 that can be used for the service vehicle that transports a baggage as the transport target, ([Par. 0020], “the autonomous traveling vehicle 100 of various sizes can be used, from a small vehicle for shipping a small predetermined item such as an accessory to a large vehicle capable of shipping a predetermined item requiring a large processing apparatus. Each autonomous traveling vehicle 100 is a vehicle that ships the predetermined item. In particular, in the embodiment, the autonomous traveling vehicle 100 is a vehicle that can process a raw material for producing a predetermined item in addition to the transportation and is equipped with a processing apparatus for performing various types of processing. Examples of the processing apparatus include a cleaning apparatus, process apparatuses such as a food process apparatus and an industrial product process apparatus, and a packaging apparatus.”) the vehicle control device further comprising:
a baggage information acquisition unit that acquires baggage information relating to a precaution for transporting the baggage to be transported, ([Par. 0033], “ In the embodiment, the shipping item processing information includes information relating to predetermined processing in the processing apparatus 111 relating to the predetermined item. In the embodiment, the shipping item processing information includes the number of predetermined items, that is, the number of predetermined items ordered. This shipping item processing information corresponds to first information relating to the predetermined item and is acquired by the first information acquisition unit 1042.”) wherein:
the allowance degree change unit changes the driving allowance degree in accordance with the baggage information acquired by the baggage information acquisition unit. ([Par. 0065], “ a running plan and an operation plan are generated while a running condition such as a route or speed adjustment of the autonomous traveling vehicle 100A is adjusted such that the predetermined item is in the shipping state and such that the predicted movement time is adjusted in order to adjust balance with the calculated predicted processing time, when the autonomous traveling vehicle arrives at the shipping destination of the predetermined item (step S807).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Murakami. The modification would have been obvious because determining the items being shipped would enable the autonomous driving operation to be appropriately adjusted based on the characteristics and transportation requirements of the shipped items.
Regarding to claim 11, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches adjusting the autonomous driving operations based on presence of the passengers onboard. (par. 0006].
Murakami teaches adjusting the autonomous driving operation based on the shipping item detected by the autonomous driving vehicle.
Therefore, the combination of Koehler and Murakami would be obvious to map to the limitation wherein: the transport target specifying unit specifies the transport target by distinguishing whether each of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle; and the allowance degree change unit changes the driving allowance degree according to a combination of results of specifying by the transport target specifying unit whether each of an occupant and a baggage as the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Murakami. The modification would have been obvious because determining the items being shipped would enable the autonomous driving operation to be appropriately adjusted based on the characteristics and transportation requirements of the shipped items.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koehler in view of Richards et al. (Publication No. US 20180194356 A1; hereinafter Richards).
Regarding to claim 13, Koehler teaches the device of claim 1.
Koehler teaches adjusting autonomous driving operation based on the presence of passengers in the vehicle as described in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the allowance degree change unit executes a fuel efficiency improvement control that is a vehicle control for improving a fuel efficiency of the service vehicle when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle, more than when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle.
However, Richards teaches the allowance degree change unit executes a fuel efficiency improvement control that is a vehicle control for improving a fuel efficiency of the service vehicle when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is not disposed in the service vehicle, more than when the transport target specifying unit specifies that the transport target is disposed in the service vehicle. ([Par. 0102], “during a first condition, when one or more occupants are present within the vehicle, VDE operation may be disabled during idle conditions in order to improve drivability; and during a second condition, when zero occupants are present in the vehicle and the vehicle is operating in an autonomous mode, the engine may be operated in the VDE mode in order to improve fuel economy while compromising drivability.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Koehler to incorporate the teaching of Richards. The modification would have been obvious because applying Richards’ occupant-dependent fuel-efficiency control to Koehler’s autonomous vehicle would allow fuel-saving operations to be increased when no passenger is present, thereby improving fuel economy without adversely affecting passenger comfort.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12, 15, 17 – 21 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 and if the 101 rejections set forth above are overcome.
Claims 4, 9, 14, 16, 23 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.
Gillett, Carla (Publication No. US 20210179137 A1) discloses an autonomous dining vehicle characterized as a mobile restaurant, bar or a limousine comprising a lower floor, an upper floor connected by multiple steps, a kitchen area for cooking meals all made on the lower floor, a consumption area including tables and seating on the lower and upper floors, at least one restroom, door and a ramp for access. A driver may provide manual driving or a driver operating from a control center systematically provides autonomous driving to autonomously control steering and propulsion said wheel-set.
Hirose et al. (Publication No. US 20210107509 A1) discloses a vehicle control system includes a service management device configured to manage a predetermined service provided in a state in which a user is not using an automated driving vehicle in an out-of-use period which is set in a usage schedule of the automated driving vehicle by the user, and a controller configured to generate an action plan of the automated driving vehicle in the out-of-use period according to the predetermined service managed by the service management device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights