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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al., US 20210245774 A1, hereinafter “Suzuki”, in view of Ike, US 20190315347A1, hereinafter “Ike” and McCall et al., US 20040127333, hereinafter “McCall”.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al., US 20210245774 A1, teaches:
A vehicle configured to enable autonomous driving through an autonomous driving kit that is attachable and detachable (Abstract) and that issues an instruction for autonomous driving ([0005], “instructions from the autonomous driving system to thereby implement autonomous driving.”), the vehicle comprising:
a vehicle platform (at least [0005]);
a brake pedal configured to receive a braking operation of a driver of the vehicle platform (at least [0008]);
a driving assistance system configured to assist the driver in braking the vehicle ([0160]);
a braking function unit configured to brake the vehicle platform in accordance with the braking operation received by the brake pedal, and a braking instruction from the autonomous driving kit or the driving assistance system ([0059], “brake system”, [0063]-[0064], “a predetermined control command transmitted from ADK 3 through vehicle control interface 4, each of brake systems 511, 512 generates a braking command for the braking device.”); and
a vehicle control interface box configured to relay control communication between the autonomous driving kit and the braking function unit (at least [0057]-[0065]), wherein:
the vehicle control interface box is configured to output, to the autonomous driving kit, a brake pedal intervention signal of a value corresponding to the braking operation received by the brake pedal (at least Abstract, and [0008] “The vehicle platform outputs a brake pedal position signal in accordance with an amount of depression of a brake pedal by a driver, and outputs a brake pedal intervention signal, to the autonomous driving system through the vehicle control interface.”), and
Suzuki doesn’t disclose or teach prohibit outputting a brake pedal intervention signal of a specific value indicating that the braking operation is performed to the autonomous driving kit, in a determination period after a requested deceleration by the braking instruction exceeds a first threshold value and until a first period has elapsed.
However, Ike’s disclosure highlights a problem similar to that of the present application regarding performing an erroneous operation (i.e. erroneous pedal depression) and suggests a predetermined determination/consideration time period (See at least [0006], [0010]-[0011], [0060]-[0064]) and teaches prohibit outputting a brake pedal intervention signal of a specific value indicating that the braking operation is performed to the autonomous driving kit, in a determination period after a requested deceleration by the braking instruction exceeds a first threshold value and until a first period has elapsed (at least see [0014], “the prohibitor is configured to determine satisfaction of the predetermined erroneous operation condition (Step 740) when the operation amount is larger than a first predetermined amount (APa) and an operation amount (BP) of a brake operator (202) of the vehicle is larger than a second predetermined amount (BPa) (“Yes in Step 720).”, [0020], [0049]-[0051], [0084], [0143]-[0147], “when the value of the timer Tm is equal to or larger than the consideration period Tminashi, the CPU determines “Yes” in Step 930, executes processing of from Step 940 to Step 960, and proceeds to Step 995”, fig. 8 and Fig. 9)
Also, McCall et al., US20040127333, teaches a method for processing an error in determining a driver’s intended operating mode when detecting the simultaneous depression of both the braking pedal and accelerator pedal (See McCall [0004]-[0005]). McCall teaches suppressing or sustaining a braking signal when the brake signal is larger than a threshold and for a predetermined time (see McCall at least Fig. 2, [0045], “sustained braking demand”, [0052], “the sustained braking demand (SBD) 143 does not rise from a logical zero to a logical one until after the second time delay (Δt2) 42 starting at a time t10 following the rise of the driver braking signal 224 above the braking demand threshold 51.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous driving kit as taught by Suzuki and use the teaching of determination/consideration time period before sending an operation signal (for monitoring an operation amount of an accelerator pedal and automatic braking operation) as taught by Ike, and further in view of teaching of sustaining a braking demand in a delay period as taught by McCall, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the autonomous driving reliability by considering the possibility of erroneous operation/depression (e.g. braking depression/intervention signal) when the signal is larger than a threshold, by monitoring the signal for a determination time. This inhibits the system from sending a braking signal that is not intended by the driver. Regarding Ike’s disclosure, it suggests similar method for determining the erroneous operation of the accelerator pedal and brake pedal to control/adjust the braking operations. This is done with respect to a predetermined time period by evaluating the magnitude and duration of the accelerator pedal depression. A PHOSITA could apply this similar method taught by Ike, using the amount of a brake pedal depression, to prevent an erroneous determination of a brake pedal depression. Regarding McCall reference, although the disclosed error relates to overlapping both the driver acceleration demand and the braking signal at the same time, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the teaching of McCall and Ike and modify Suzuki in view of these teachings to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, and Suzuki teaches wherein the vehicle control interface box is configured to: determine that the braking operation is in an operation-present state in which the braking operation is performed (Figs 4 and 5, Fig. 6 S1, __Note: according to at least these figures and associated paragraphs, Suzuki’s disclosure determines if the braking operations is in an operation-present state (i.e. braking pedal is operated; time t1 in Fig. 5, is when the control determined that the driver starts depressing brake pedal__), in a case where a fluctuation value corresponding to an operation amount of the braking operation is equal to or greater than a second threshold value (at least Fig. 5, between t2-t3, the amount pf depression of brake pedal (reads on a fluctuation value) is higher than a threshold, [0084], [0087]),);
However, Suzuki doesn’t teach output, to the autonomous driving kit, the brake pedal intervention signal of the specific value, in a case where the operation-present state continues for a second period or longer in the determination period.
Nevertheless, Ike teaches output, to the autonomous driving kit, the brake pedal intervention signal of the specific value, in a case where the operation-present state continues for a second period or longer in the determination period (at least Fig. 4 step 420, Fig. 10 step 42 and 520), [0152], “when the unsatisfaction flag Xfusei is not “1” at the time of execution of the processing of Step 910 by the CPU, the CPU determines “No” in Step 910, and directly proceeds to Step 995.”, [0155], “the second device continues the PCS automatic braking during execution of the PCS automatic braking until the vehicle stopped state has continued for the threshold period Tspdth or more irrespective of the value of the prohibition flag XPCSkinshi.”, Figs. 10-11, [0155], __Note: term “a fluctuation value” recited in the claim has been interpreted as a depressing force of the brake pedal according to the instant specification and claim 5__ ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous driving kit as taught by Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall, to add the step of outputting the braking signal if a pedal depression amount continues to be higher that an threshold for a predetermined period as taught by Ike, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the autonomous driving reliability by considering the possibility of erroneous operation (e.g. error in braking depression/intervention signal).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, and Suzuki teaches wherein the vehicle control interface box is configured to output, to the autonomous driving kit, a brake pedal intervention signal of a value different from the specific value and indicating that the braking operation is not performed, in a case where the operation-present state is not continued for the second period or longer in the determination period (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, period between t1 to t2).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, and Ike teaches wherein the vehicle control interface box is configured to output, to the autonomous driving kit, the brake pedal intervention signal of the specific value, in a case where a determination is made that the braking operation is in the operation-present state not in the determination period (__ Note: according to Ike, at least [0096]-[0099], and Fig. 5, step 510, when it is determined that the PCS automatic braking is in operation and the erroneous depression flag is not 0 (Step 560 of Fig. 5), the process does not consider a determination time period and send the signal to the device for stopping the PCS automatic braking. Similarly, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to use the same method and apply it for controlling/monitoring a brake intervention signal for a possibility of an error operation__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous driving kit as taught by Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall, to further output a brake pedal intervention signal when the braking operation is in the operation-present state not in the determination period as suggested by Ike with respect to controlling the output signal of an accelerator pedal depression while the PCS automatic braking is active, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of the reliability of the autonomous vehicle and preventing the output a signal while there is an erroneous operation.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall teaches the vehicle according to claim 2, and Suzuki teaches wherein the fluctuation value is a value that fluctuates in accordance with the operation amount of the brake pedal, and fluctuates in a case where the braking operation is performed and also by braking based on the braking instruction (at least Abstract, [0008]-[0010], [0062], [0091]-[0093] __Note: the amount of depression of a brake pedal in Suzuki’s disclosure reads on the fluctuation value as recited in the claim).
In alternative mapping, as also addressed in part of the rejection of claim 2, Ike also teaches using the accelerator pedal operation amount or the brake pedal operation amount that reads on a fluctuation value in the claim which is interpreted as the amount of depression of a brake pedal (See Ike, at least [0050]-[0051] [0056], [0084], __Note: a depressing force of the acceleration pedal (i.e the accelerator pedal operation amount ) and also the brake pedal operation amount in Ike’s disclosure reads on the fluctuation value. )
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous driving kit as taught by Suzuki in view of Ike and McCall, and use a fluctuation value in accordance with the operation amount of a brake pedal as a factor to monitor the brake operation and control outputting the brake intervention signal, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of provide a vehicle capable of preventing an erroneous determination of a depression of a brake pedal.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al, US 20260062020 A1, discloses a method for controlling a vehicle according to a driver's lane departure intention that comprises: detecting an operation amount of a brake pedal of an ego vehicle; See Kim at least [0017], [0068], [0070], [0084], [0096], claims 7 and 13.
Yamashita et al., US 20260061999 A1, discloses a driving assistance device and a determination time period and discloses executing behavior control (e.g. braking control) depending on whether or not the preparatory action has been performed during a given determination time period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights