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 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: another vehicle determination section, a road determination section, a road determination section, a travel control section in claim(s) 1 (first instance), an out-of-vehicle notification control section in Claim 8 (first instance), control switching section in Claim 11 (first instance), a route change section in Claim 12 (first instance).
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.
Each section will be interpreted as a functional software module stored in computer memory and executed by a computer processor as described starting in par. 0038 of applicant’s specification as filed, or equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the claim element "the drowsiness sign notification device".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is not recited previously in the claim or in parent claim 1, which makes the scope of the claim as a whole indefinite. For examining purposes, this will be interpreted as the “out-of-vehicle notification device 45” discussed starting in par. 0030 of applicant’s specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the limitation " in a case where the subject vehicle starts moving in a direction different from a traveling direction estimated by the another vehicle while the subject vehicle is moving, ".
It is unclear whether this claim limitation means 1) the another vehicle has estimated the traveling direction of the subject vehicle and somehow the another vehicle recognizing deviation from that traveling direction causes the subject vehicle to enter a stop preparation state (this is how the claim language reads but is not supported in applicant’s specification or claims) or 2) the limitation is intended to read “in a case where the another vehicle starts moving in a direction different from a traveling direction estimated by the subject vehicle while the subject vehicle is moving” which fits applicant’s specification paragraph 0141 example and aligns with the rest of the claims. The lack of clarity in this limitation causes the scope of the claim as a whole to be indefinite. For examining purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to have meaning 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10, 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryota et al (WO 2021199579, hereinafter Ryota).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryota teaches:
an automated driving control device that enables traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function (see at least "The vehicle control device includes an automatic driving ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 1" on page 3) , the automated driving control device comprising
at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated driving control device to implement: (see at least "The automatic operation control unit 2, the peripheral object detection unit 3, and the peripheral map detection unit 4 are loaded into the memory 22 as programs and executed by the processor 21" in page 5)
an another vehicle determination section configured to determine a priority relationship between the subject vehicle and another vehicle at a multi-stop intersection (see at least "A vehicle control device characterized in that the order of passing the own vehicle (C1) is controlled based on the order of arrival at the passing point (F)." on page 20 and “the order in which the own vehicle (C1) and the oncoming vehicle (C2) arrive at the first vehicle passing point (F) is the oncoming vehicle (C2). ) First arrives, the own vehicle (C1) is made to stand by at the second vehicle passing point (N), and after the oncoming vehicle (C2) has passed the second vehicle passing point (N). If the space (SP) from the position of the own vehicle (C1) to the first vehicle passage point (F) and the alternating traffic section (R1) are vacant, the own vehicle (C1) is allowed to pass.” In page 21) ;
a road determination section configured to determine whether a connection road connected to the multi-stop intersection is a narrow road on which it is difficult for the subject vehicle and the another vehicle to pass each other (see at least "FIG. 11 is a diagram showing a narrow road on which vehicles cannot pass each other, and is an example in which the own vehicle C1 and the oncoming vehicle C2 are traveling toward a narrow road (alternate traffic section)…In step S101, the traffic determination unit 6 obtains information on surrounding objects from the sensor SS and the communication unit U1 and information on narrow roads (alternate traffic sections), and information on the position of the own vehicle and map information on the surrounding area of the map unit U2. After acquiring from the automatic driving map of the map detection unit 4, the existence of a narrow road (alternate traffic section) including a crossing on the traveling route is detected." On page 12 ) ; and
a travel control section configured to perform, at the multi-stop intersection, a travel control of the subject vehicle according to the priority relationship in a case where the connection road is not the narrow road (see at least "For example, in the first embodiment, when there is an oncoming vehicle in step S33 of FIG. 3 (step S33: NO), the position of the oncoming vehicle is far away from the vehicle passing point F (example: several km or more), and the step If it is not necessary to calculate the arrival time to the vehicle passing point in S15 and the own vehicle C1 can pass the railroad crossing with a margin, it is treated as synonymous with no oncoming vehicle (step S33: YES) and the process proceeds to step S10. Therefore, the wasted waiting time of the own vehicle C1 may be reduced" on page 19-20) , and
performs a travel control that gives priority to traveling of the another vehicle in a case where the connection road is the narrow road. (see at least "According to the above configuration, when the oncoming vehicle C2 arrives at the vehicle passing point F first, the automatic driving ECU 1 takes the own vehicle C1 to the vehicle passing point in front of the railroad crossing area R1 (or the narrow road area R100). After waiting at N and the oncoming vehicle C2 has passed the vehicle passing point N, the own vehicle C1 is started from the vehicle passing point N and passed through the railroad crossing area R1 to pass without facing the oncoming vehicle C2." On page 21 )
Regarding Claim 2, Ryota teaches:
the automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
the another vehicle determination section estimates a traveling direction of the another vehicle at the multi-stop intersection (see at least " Further, when the autonomous driving ECU 1 faces the oncoming vehicle C2 in the railroad crossing area R1 of one lane and the independent spaces SP2 and SP3 before and after the railroad crossing, the oncoming vehicle moves backward after confirming the existence of the following vehicle. It can pass through C2." On page 12 and “The passage determination unit 6 acquires the speed of the oncoming vehicle C2 and the distance to the vehicle passing point F (SP105) in step S116, and calculates the time TC2 (s) at which the oncoming vehicle C2 reaches the vehicle passing point F.” on page 15) , and
in a case where the subject vehicle obstructs traveling of the another vehicle, the travel control section moves the subject vehicle to a standby position where the subject vehicle does not obstruct traveling of the another vehicle. (see at least “The determination result 300 of FIG. 10B includes the position number 301, the parallel space 302 that can pass each other, the single space 303 that cannot pass each other, and the vehicle passing point 304 in one entry.” On page 8 and " The passage determination unit 6 notifies the automatic driving determination unit 5 to move to the space SP100 at the vehicle passage point N of the own vehicle C1 and stand by in step S125, and the automatic driving determination unit 5 controls the own vehicle C1" on page 16 )
Regarding Claim 5, Ryota teaches:
5. The automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
the another vehicle determination section estimates a timing at which the another vehicle reaches the multi-stop intersection (see at least " The passage determination unit 6 acquires the speed of the oncoming vehicle C2 and the distance to the vehicle passing point F (SP5) in step S15, and calculates the time TC2 (s) at which the oncoming vehicle C2 reaches the vehicle passing point F. Further, in step S15, the passage determination unit 6 acquires the planned traveling speed of the own vehicle C1 and the distance from the stop position to the vehicle passing point F (SP4), and the time TC1 (the time when the own vehicle reaches the vehicle passing point F) s) is calculated." On page 9) , and
in a case where the connection road is the narrow road, the travel control section causes the another vehicle estimated to arrive at the multi-stop intersection within a predetermined time to preferentially travel through the multi-stop intersection even when the subject vehicle arrives at the multi-stop intersection earlier than the another vehicle. (see at least “The passage determination unit 6 acquires the speed of the oncoming vehicle C2 and the distance to the vehicle passing point F (SP5) in step S15, and calculates the time TC2 (s) at which the oncoming vehicle C2 reaches the vehicle passing point F. Further, in step S15, the passage determination unit 6 acquires the planned traveling speed of the own vehicle C1 and the distance from the stop position to the vehicle passing point F (SP4), and the time TC1 (the time when the own vehicle reaches the vehicle passing point F) s) is calculated” on page 9 " Further, from the above-mentioned calculation result, when the oncoming vehicle C2 reaches the vehicle passing point F first, the traffic determination unit 6 causes the own vehicle C1 to stand by at the vehicle passing point N until the oncoming vehicle C2 passes. After that, it is judged that the space from the own vehicle C1 to the vehicle passing point F and the narrow road are vacant, and the own vehicle C1 is passed. Therefore, it is safe without facing the oncoming vehicle C2 on the narrow road. The own vehicle C1 can be driven." On page 18, note in a situation where the own vehicle is stopped prior to the oncoming vehicle arriving with speed at the intersection, this logic would arrive at the claimed example because the oncoming vehicle would still arrive at passing point F before the own vehicle )
Regarding Claim 10, Ryota teaches:
10. The automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
in a case where the another vehicle enters a subject vehicle road on which the subject vehicle waits, the road determination section determines whether there is an evacuation place where the subject vehicle is allowed to be evacuated in front of or behind the subject vehicle, and the travel control section moves the subject vehicle to the evacuation place in a case where there is the evacuation place. (see at least " When the passage determination unit 6 determines that the vehicle passing point N exists in the vicinity of the own vehicle C1 in front of the narrow road area R100 and the own vehicle C1 can stand by in the space SP100 (step S120: YES), the step is taken." On page 16 )
Regarding Claim 13, Ryota teaches:
13. The automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
the another vehicle determination section determines a vehicle type of the another vehicle, and the travel control section changes the travel control according to the vehicle type of the another vehicle. (see at least " For example, in the first embodiment, the space of FIG. 4 is defined as a sufficient size for one general vehicle, but the size of the space is not fixed, and the own vehicle and surrounding vehicles (two-wheeled vehicle, The size of the space may be arbitrarily changed according to (small car, ordinary car, large car)." On page 19 and “With the above configuration, the autonomous driving ECU 1 can set a pauseable area according to the shape of the own vehicle C1, the shape of the surrounding road, and the shape of the surrounding vehicle by changing the size and shape of the space.” On page 22 )
Regarding Claim 14, Ryota teaches:
14. The automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
the another vehicle determination section recognizes an another vehicle signal, of the another vehicle, indicating to give way to the subject vehicle, and in a case where the another vehicle signal is recognized even in a case where the connection road is the narrow road, the travel control section performs the travel control of prioritizing traveling of the subject vehicle over traveling of the another vehicle. (see at least " When the traffic determination unit 6 receives the radio signal from the oncoming vehicle C2 in step S122 and receives the signal prompting the own vehicle C1 to start as the oncoming vehicle C2 intends to give way (step S122: YES). The process proceeds to step S111, and if the radio signal cannot be received or the signal prompting the start cannot be received (step S122: NO), the process proceeds to step S123." On page 17 )
Regarding Claim 18, Ryota also teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an automated driving control program that enables traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function (see at least " The auxiliary storage device 25 is composed of a non-volatile storage medium and holds programs, tables, and the like. The automatic operation control unit 2, the peripheral object detection unit 3, and the peripheral map detection unit 4 are loaded into the memory 22 as programs and executed by the processor 21" in page 5 ) for implementing the control device of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the control device)
Regarding Claim 19, Ryota also teaches:
An automated driving control method that enables traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function (see at least "vehicle control method" on page 26) for implementing the control device of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the control 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.
[A] does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but [B] does teach
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the (blank) taught by (Primary reference) to incorporate the teachings of (secondary reference) wherein (claim language or paraphrase). The motivation to incorporate the teachings of (secondary reference) would be to (motivation)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota et al (WO 2021199579, hereinafter Ryota) in view of Toyoda et al (US 20170057514, hereinafter Toyoda).
Regarding Claim 6, Ryota teaches:
the automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
Ryota does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Toyoda does teach:
in a case where a standby state for giving priority to the another vehicle continues for more than a predetermined time, the travel control section terminates the standby state. (see at least "For instance, when determining that the arrival time of the autonomous vehicle and the detected one or more other objects at the multi-stop intersection is substantially the same is based on actual arrival times, the driving maneuver can include remaining stopped at the multi-stop intersection for a predetermined period of time. If at least one of the detected one or more other objects do not move within the predetermined period of time, the driving maneuver can further include proceeding through the multi-stop intersection (e.g., passing straight through the intersection, turning though the intersection, etc.). " in par. 0047 and “If the first other vehicle 350 or the second other vehicle 360 do not proceed through the intersection or otherwise move forward within the predetermined period of time, then the vehicle 100 can proceed through the intersection 315 in the intended manner (e.g., continuing straight on the first road 305, turning onto the second road 310, etc.). An example of the vehicle 100 implementing such a driving maneuver is shown in FIG. 3B.” in par. 0080)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Ryota to incorporate the teachings of Toyoda wherein if the other vehicles at the multi-stop intersection do not move for a predetermined period of time, the own vehicle is controlled to proceed through its intended driving maneuver. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Toyoda would be to minimize the gap between human behavior and autonomous vehicle behavior at multi-stop intersections (see par. 0088), and to avoid wasting time.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota et al (WO 2021199579, hereinafter Ryota) in view of Kusayanagi et al (US 20200353948, hereinafter Kusayanagi).
Regarding Claim 7, Ryota teaches:
7. The automated driving control device according to claim 1,
wherein
Ryota does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kusayanagi does teach:
in a case where the another vehicle travels in a scheduled traveling direction of the subject vehicle, the travel control section starts the subject vehicle so that the subject vehicle follows the another vehicle. (see at least " FIGS. 6A and 6B are diagrams illustrating a situation where the host vehicle V1 is to turn left at the intersection 51, as a situation where the action of the host vehicle V1 is to change." in par. 0058 and “In this case, the host vehicle V1 starts traveling when another vehicle V11 approaching the intersection 51 from the right finishes passing the intersection 51.” In par. 0059 and “FIGS. 7A and 7B are diagrams illustrating a situation where the host vehicle V1 is to turn right at the intersection 51 after waiting for passage of other vehicles from the right and the left, as a situation where the action of the host vehicle V1 is to change.” In par. 0062 and “In this case, the host vehicle V1 starts traveling (turning right) when both the other vehicle V11, approaching the intersection 51 from the right, and the other vehicle V12, approaching the intersection 51 from the left, finish passing the intersection 51.” In par. 0063)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Ryota to incorporate the teachings of Kusayanagi wherein the autonomous vehicle turns left or right following another vehicle after waiting for that vehicle to pass through the intersection and displays an indicator to occupants showing why the vehicle is waiting to turn. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kusayanagi would be to make the autonomous vehicle wait for other cars to pass when turning, which improves safety by avoiding collisions, and make occupants more aware of why it is waiting (see par. 0090-0097), which improves the experience for the occupant.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota et al (WO 2021199579, hereinafter Ryota) in view of Vogt et al (US 20230227059, hereinafter Vogt).
Regarding Claim 8, Ryota teaches:
the automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
Ryota does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Vogt does teach:
the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the drowsiness sign notification device to implement an out-of-vehicle notification control section configured to notify an outside of the subject vehicle that the subject vehicle is traveling by the automated driving function at the multi-stop intersection using an out-of-vehicle notification device. (see at least " FIG. 10 is an example user interface illustrating a notification from an AV 110 according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. The user interface may be generated by a navigation application executing on the user device 170. The user interface is displayed by the user device 170 and/or a connected display (e.g., an in-vehicle display of the vehicle 160). The user interface includes an illustration of an intersection (e.g., the intersection shown in FIG. 5), an illustration 1010 of the vehicle 160, and a route 1015 planned by the navigation system 920 for the vehicle 160. The user interface further includes an illustration 1020 of the AV 110 that has transmitted a notification to the user device 170. The notification output 960 outputs a speech bubble 1025 with a message from the AV 110. The notification output 960 further outputs an arrow 1030 indicating the planned pathway of the AV 110. The notification from the AV 110 may include the message, the planned pathway, the location of the AV 110, the location of the vehicle 160 or other identifying information for the vehicle 160, or any other information described above." in par. 0088)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Ryota to incorporate the teachings of Vogt wherein the autonomous vehicle outputs notifications to other vehicles at the intersection indicating its intentions and offering to yield to other vehicles. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Vogt would be to improve the experience of other drivers in the environment of the autonomous vehicle (see par. 0020).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota et al (WO 2021199579, hereinafter Ryota) in view of Garcia et al (US 20210094547, hereinafter Garcia).
Regarding Claim 9, Ryota teaches:
the automated driving control device according to claim 1, wherein
Ryota does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kusayanagi does teach:
(see at least " In some embodiments, this current and/or historical behavior can inform the autonomous vehicle's 1204 own stop behavior. For example, according to historical data, vehicles with a certain velocity profile similar to the autonomous vehicle's 1204 velocity profile have stopped at location 1212a 10% of the time, location 1212b 85% of the time, and location 1212c 5% of the time. The reasons for this may be varied, such as the location 1212b having a much better visual range for oncoming traffic than, say, location 1212a or 1212c. Thus, the autonomous vehicle 1204 can modify its velocity 1214 as a function of time to follow the velocity profile for stopping at location 1212b in order to mimic what other vehicles have historically done. This can reveal the best locations for visual clarity, emulate more human-like driving characteristics that other vehicles on the road can intuitively understand, etc." in par. 0098)
Given that Ryota already teaches recognizing that the upcoming road is narrow, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device taught by Ryota to incorporate the teachings of Garcia wherein the autonomous vehicle creeps into the intersection slightly in order to gain a better visual of other vehicles entering the intersection from other directions. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Garcia would be to improve the autonomous vehicle’s ability to detect oncoming traffic (see par. 0072), which improves safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 11-12, 16-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art comes from Ryota, which teaches a autonomous vehicle control system with logic for handling situations where the vehicle needs to pass through a narrow intersection while avoiding an oncoming vehicle. Ryota deals with a similar problem but fails to teach the logic for the specific situations laid out in the following claims:
For Claim 3, the prior art does not appear to teach “causes the subject vehicle to wait on a subject vehicle road in a case where an oncoming vehicle, which is the another vehicle, is estimated to move to the connection road different from the subject vehicle road where the subject vehicle is located, and causes the subject vehicle to wait at the multi-stop intersection in a case where the oncoming vehicle is estimated to move to the subject vehicle road.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claim 4, the prior art does not appear to teach “in a case the another vehicle located on an intersecting road on which the subject vehicle is scheduled to turn right or left is estimated to move to the subject vehicle road where the subject vehicle is located, the travel control section causes the subject vehicle to leave the subject vehicle road and causes the subject vehicle to enter the intersecting road after the another vehicle moves to the subject vehicle road” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claim 11, the prior art does not appear to teach “the automated driving control device further comprises a control switching section configured to execute a driving-mode switch from the automated driving function to a driving operator in a case where a following vehicle that obstructs traveling of the another vehicle to the subject vehicle road appears on the subject vehicle road after the subject vehicle moves to the multi-stop intersection.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claim 12, the prior art does not appear to teach “the automated driving control device further comprises a route change section configured to change a route to a destination set in the subject vehicle to a detour route passing through the connection road where the another vehicle is not present in a case where a following vehicle that obstructs traveling of the another vehicle to the subject vehicle road appears on the subject vehicle road after the subject vehicle moves to the multi-stop intersection.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claim 16, the prior art does not appear to teach “the another vehicle determination section grasps, as a risk vehicle, the another vehicle that starts a right or left turn without operating a direction indicator, and in a case where the risk vehicle is grasped while the subject vehicle is moving, the travel control section brings the subject vehicle into a stop preparation state where the subject vehicle is capable of being immediately stopped.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claim 17, the prior art does not appear to teach “another vehicle determination section acquires, by communication, another vehicle information indicating a position and a traveling direction of the another vehicle traveling by the automated driving function, and in a case where the another vehicle information is acquired before the multi-stop intersection, the travel control section starts the travel control that gives priority to traveling of the another vehicle on the connection road before the multi-stop intersection.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights