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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements that were filed on 08 August 2025 and 26 August 2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: “processing section” as recited in claims 19 and 20.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In view of the specification of the instant application, the functions performed by the processing section are interpreted as being performed by at least a control circuit (see at least paragraph 0028 of the specification of the instant application).
The examiner notes that while claim 1 similarly recites a “situation identification section” and “a determination section”, these limitations are not considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claim 1 explicitly recites at least one of a circuit and a processor configured to perform the corresponding functions for these elements, whereas claims 19 and 20 are not considered to recite sufficient structure to perform the corresponding functions of the claimed processing section.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “to temporarily stop the subject vehicle, under the speed limit” (emphasis added by the examiner) in lines 2-3. The intended scope of the limitation “under the speed limit” as recited in claim 9 is considered indefinite. As best understood by the examiner, the action of “to temporarily stop the subject vehicle” is being interpreted as temporarily controlling the subject vehicle to have a speed of zero. As such, when the speed of the subject vehicle is zero, the speed of the subject vehicle is also necessarily under any possible positive value that may be set as a speed limit. In other words, based on the examiner’s best understanding of the claim, the limitation “under the speed limit” as recited in claim 9 is considered a redundant limitation which does not further limit the scope of the claim, because a stopped vehicle (i.e., with a speed of zero) will always be under any given value for a speed limit.
Given that the claim language of claim 9 includes the limitation of “under the speed limit”, it is considered unclear as to whether the Applicant’s intended scope of the claim is different from the examiner’s interpretation. For example, it is considered plausible that the term “stop” as recited in claim 9 may be intended to refer to decelerating or braking the subject vehicle without actually reaching zero speed (e.g., a “rolling stop”). However, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (see MPEP 2173.01). As such, for the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 9 is being interpreted such that the term “stop” indicates the subject vehicle reaching a complete stop (i.e., having a speed of zero), and the limitation “under the speed limit” is considered to be redundant and not further limiting the claim for the reasons set forth in further detail above.
Claims 10-11 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least due to their dependence on rejected claim 9.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more:
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-18 are directed towards a machine (a vehicle control device). Claim 19 is directed towards a machine (a non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Claim 20 is directed towards a process (a vehicle control method).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recited are directed towards “identifying a situation of the subject vehicle” and “making a determination regarding driving”. These are abstract ideas, specifically, mental processes, that can be performed in the human mind.
The claimed step of identifying a situation of a subject vehicle is recited broadly enough to be performed by a human mentally observing an environment in and/or around a subject vehicle and identifying a current situation based on the observations. The claimed step of making a determination regarding driving is broad enough to be performed by a human mentally determining an appropriate driving action based on the observed environment. The performance of these steps as recited in the independent claims may be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. As per independent claims 1, 19, and 20 the claimed steps of identifying a situation of a subject vehicle and making a determination regarding driving are broad enough to be performed mentally or by pen and paper, as set forth above.
Additional limitations recited in the claims include “wherein the identifying the situation includes a identifying a situation in which the subject vehicle passes through a plurality of consecutive intersections when the subject vehicle is caused to travel along a scheduled route”. This limitation is considered to merely further define the abstract idea by defining a particular situation which could be readily identified mentally by a human based on a known scheduled route of the subject vehicle.
The claims further include the limitation of “making the determination includes making a mode set in driving control a different setting according to a driving control difficulty level in a case where the subject vehicle passes through the plurality of consecutive intersections, and the driving control difficulty level is a driving control difficulty level according to a direction of travel”. This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of merely insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), because this limitation merely changing a driving control setting without providing additional details on how driving control is actually performed in a manner which could be considered integration into a practical application.
The structural elements recited in the claims include a circuit, a processor, and a memory. These structures perform functions which are insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data storage, data gathering, and well-known data processing and, therefore, do not amount to integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These functions that the structures are performing are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and, therefore, the recitation of these structures does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
The technological components are recited at such a high level of generality to amount to a generic computer structure for performing generic computer functions which is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Although technological elements are included for performing the claimed steps, a mental process performed in a computer environment is still considered a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. There are no additional elements recited in the independent claims that amount to significantly more than performing the abstract idea. The technological components recite the well-understood, routine, and conventional computing functions of mere data gathering, data storage, and well-known data processing (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claims do not require any particular technological elements besides generic computer components performing functions which are well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is noted that the claimed limitations set forth identifying a situation and making a determination based on the identified situation which, as noted above, can be done mentally or with the aid of generic and well-known computer components, but none of the claimed limitations actively set forth wherein the subject vehicle actually performs particular control steps based on the determination in a manner which could be considered an inventive concept or integration in a practical application. In other words, the claims recite limitations which could be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and do not require the aid of any particular machine other than generic and well-known physical aids or computer components.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing additional limitations on how the abstract idea is performed, and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claim 2, this claim is considered to merely further define the abstract idea by reciting additional details regarding how the determined mode is configured to be set.
As per claim 3, this claim is considered insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form insignificant application, because it recites the generic and well-known process of providing a notification based on a detected event.
As per claims 4-6 and 16-18, the claims are considered to merely further define the abstract idea by reciting particular situations and corresponding determinations, wherein the recited situations could be readily identified mentally by a human based on a known scheduled route of the subject vehicle.
As per claims 7-15, these claims are considered to merely further define the abstract idea by reciting additional details regarding particular determined settings (i.e., a speed limit setting, temporary stop setting, and a deceleration limit setting) without reciting control steps for actually performing vehicle control based on the determined settings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madigan et al. (US 2018/0061230), hereinafter referred to as Madigan.
Regarding claim 1, Madigan teaches:
A vehicle control device configured to execute autonomous driving control of a subject vehicle ("In some aspects, based on the information indicative of the event affecting the portion of road, the computing device may send, to one or more autonomous vehicles, instructions to take one or more actions in response to the event. The instructions to take one or more actions may comprise an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to apply brakes, an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to slow down, or an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to speed up." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0013),
the vehicle 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 ("For example, the vehicle and infrastructure control computer or computing device 151 may have a processor for controlling overall operation of the computing device 151 and its associated components, including RAM, ROM, input/output module, and memory." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0031),
the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: a situation identification section configured to identify a situation of the subject vehicle ("Sensor data can include data collected from mobile devices (e.g., a driver's mobile phone, a passenger's mobile phone, a pedestrian's mobile phone), vehicle sensors, on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems, sensors on traffic devices (e.g., traffic cameras, etc.), off the shelf devices, or any other devices as will be described in further detail below. Sensor data may refer to information pertaining to one or more actions or events performed or observed by a vehicle, a pedestrian, traffic devices, or any other devices and can include aspects of information identified or determined from data collected from a vehicle, a stationary device, or a mobile device. Sensor data can include, for example, location data, speed or velocity data, acceleration data, braking data, turning or swerving data, image data, presence data, time data, direction data, mobile device orientation data, rotation/gyroscopic data, weather data, vehicle condition data, and the like." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0032);
and a determination section configured to make a determination related to driving ("In some aspects, based on the information indicative of the event affecting the portion of road, the computing device may send, to one or more autonomous vehicles, instructions to take one or more actions in response to the event. The instructions to take one or more actions may comprise an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to apply brakes, an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to slow down, or an instruction for the autonomous vehicle to speed up." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0013),
wherein the situation identification section identifies a situation in which the subject vehicle passes through a plurality of consecutive intersections when the subject vehicle is caused to travel along a scheduled route ("A computing device, such as the vehicle and infrastructure control server 150, may adjust navigation score(s) (e.g., risk score(s)) for each intersection (or other portion of a road) in response to receiving sensor or other data. Each intersection may have an intersection risk score, and the computing device may determine the intersection risk score based on one or more factors, such as the complexity of the intersection (e.g., the number streets passing through the intersection), the number of accidents historically occurring at the intersection, weather, traffic congestion, and other dynamic factors." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0098) (The examiner notes that Madigan teaches that a scheduled navigation route for a vehicle may include the vehicle traversing a plurality of intersections, which corresponds to the claimed plurality of consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015)),
the determination section sets a mode to be set in driving control differently according to a driving control difficulty level for passing through the plurality of consecutive intersections ("Based on recommended routes, the computing device may send instructions to the vehicle to switch between autonomous mode and non-autonomous mode. For example, if the vehicle will be traveling through an intersection that prohibits autonomous vehicles or that is dangerous for autonomous vehicles, the computing device may instruct the vehicle to switch to non-autonomous mode." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0105),
and the driving control difficulty level is a driving control difficulty level according to a direction of travel ("Intersections may be provided with a plurality of different risk scores, depending on a car's direction of travel through the intersection. For example, different risk scores may be assigned to northbound travel, southbound travel, eastbound travel, and westbound travel through the intersection." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0107).
Regarding claim 2, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the determination section is configured to set a mode related to an automation level differently according to the driving control difficulty level ("For example, the computing device may send an instruction to the vehicle to adjust the level of autonomy, such as to turn off autonomous mode (e.g., switch to manual mode), or to switch to an autonomous safe mode (e.g., a semi-autonomous mode)... The computing device may send the instruction in response to detecting an event at the intersection, such as unusual congestion, a traffic accident, an unusual number of pedestrians or bicycles, etc." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 16, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections),
and in a case where the subject vehicle is predicted to stop before entering a second intersection due to a traffic signal indicating a stop signal at the second intersection or traffic congestion ("In some aspects, the vehicle and infrastructure computing device may determine that the vehicle is at the location of the traffic device and that the one or more traffic signals of the traffic device is red." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0007) (The examiner notes that the traffic signal being red as taught by Madigan corresponds to the traffic signal indicating a stop signal as claimed),
the determination section sets a mode for executing autonomous driving control ("Similarly, the computing device may send an instruction to the autonomous vehicle to take a specific action, such as to brake, to slow down, or to speed up. The computing device may send the instruction in response to detecting an event at the intersection, such as unusual congestion, a traffic accident, an unusual number of pedestrians or bicycles, etc." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 17, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections),
and in a case where the subject vehicle is predicted to stop before entering a second intersection due to a traffic signal indicating a stop signal at the second intersection or traffic congestion ("In some aspects, the vehicle and infrastructure computing device may determine that the vehicle is at the location of the traffic device and that the one or more traffic signals of the traffic device is red." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0007) (The examiner notes that the traffic signal being red as taught by Madigan corresponds to the traffic signal indicating a stop signal as claimed),
the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving ("Based on recommended routes, the computing device may send instructions to the vehicle to switch between autonomous mode and non-autonomous mode. For example, if the vehicle will be traveling through an intersection that prohibits autonomous vehicles or that is dangerous for autonomous vehicles, the computing device may instruct the vehicle to switch to non-autonomous mode." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0105).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Wiesenberg (US 2020/0004243), hereinafter referred to as Wiesenberg. Wiesenberg is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a driving mode of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Wiesenberg teaches:
wherein in a case where the mode related to the automation level is switched to a mode for causing a driver to execute a manual driving, the determination section decides to make a notification of starting the manual driving to the driver ("Conventionally, when a difficult intersection with sensor obstructions is encountered, some systems notify a human driver that the autonomous vehicle is not capable of navigating the intersection autonomously, forcing the human driver to take manual control of the vehicle." – see at least Wiesenberg: paragraph 0004).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Wiesenberg such that in a case where the mode related to the automation level is switched to a mode for causing a driver to execute a manual driving, the determination section decides to make a notification of starting the manual driving to the driver. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wiesenberg’s notification for a human driver to manually control a vehicle with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to alert occupants of the vehicle when autonomous navigation of a particular intersection is not feasible (“In some embodiments, another aspect of intersection characterization module 230 is to notify a human driver or other occupant of the vehicle 100 that autonomous navigation of a particular intersection is achievable or non-achievable, as the case may be.” – see at least Wiesenberg: paragraph 0035). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing a human driver to intervene with manual control of the vehicle as necessary (“In this autonomous driving mode, an autonomous vehicle performs all aspects of a dynamic driving task but with the expectation that a human driver will intervene (e.g., take over manual control of steering and acceleration/deceleration), if a situation arises that the autonomous vehicle is not able to handle on its own.” – see at least Wiesenberg: paragraph 0002).
Claims 5-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Mallela et al. (US 2021/0303882), hereinafter referred to as Mallela. Mallela is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to traverse intersections.
Regarding claim 5, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections).
Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
and in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a second intersection, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving in a case where there is a possibility that a vulnerable road user crosses a route on which the subject vehicle is scheduled to travel at the two consecutive intersections ("When a complex intersection is encountered, the AV can stop at the stop line and request remote control assistance at the stop line. Remote intersection navigation 9705 can take control and drive the AV through the intersection in a safe manner, and then return to autonomous intersection navigation 9703 after the intersection is traversed. When the AV is stopped at an intersection waiting for obstacles to be cleared from the intersection, if there is a large number of targets, for example, the AV can request a check in from remote intersection navigation 9705." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067) (The examiner notes that the remote control assistance as taught by Mallela corresponds to manual driving as claimed, because it refers to an embodiment in which control is performed manually by a remote operator (“Forced checkin is desired if it is pre-determined that a remote control processor such as, for example, but not limited to, an operator, should verify whether or not the AV should enter an intersection.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0073). Further, the obstacles in an intersection as taught by Mallela may include pedestrians ("In some configurations, the AV can follow a first set of strategies when vehicles occupy an intersection (signed or signaled), and a second set of strategies when pedestrians occupy an intersection (either signed or signaled)." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067), wherein pedestrians correspond to vulnerable road users as claimed),
and sets a mode for executing autonomous driving control in a case where there is no possibility ("When remote intersection navigation 9705 deems that the intersection is safe for traversal, remote intersection navigation 9705 can return control to autonomous intersection navigation 9703." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a second intersection, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving in a case where there is a possibility that a vulnerable road user crosses a route on which the subject vehicle is scheduled to travel at the two consecutive intersections, and sets a mode for executing autonomous driving control in a case where there is no possibility. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for selective intervention via a remote operator with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to stop autonomous control of a vehicle and transfer control to a remote operator as necessary (“If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing manual intervention in cases where autonomous traversal through an intersection is unsafe (“situations that can be accommodated by an implementation of the system of the present teachings can include, but are not limited to including, invalid or possibly invalid perception data gathered by the AV, difficult intersections, obstacles in the intersection, complex intersections, and AV orientation issues.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Madigan in view of Mallela teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections).
Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
and in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a second intersection, the determination section sets a mode related to the automation level to a mode for executing autonomous driving control when the subject vehicle passes through the first intersection ("Likewise, no transfer of control from the remote control processor to the AV is required if the remote control processor finds that the actions the AV is taking are consistent. If the remote control processor has taken over, the AV waits at the current stop line until the remote control processor can transfer control to the AV. If 9176 the AV has the right of way at the intersection, the remote control processor can transfer control to the AV so that the AV can once again travel autonomously 9165." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046) (The examiner notes that the intersection at which the autonomous vehicle (AV) has the right of way as taught by Mallela corresponds to the claimed first intersection),
and to a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving when the subject vehicle passes through the second intersection ("If 9176 the AV does not have the right of way at the intersection, the remote control processor can retain control of the AV until the AV has the right of way. If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046) (The examiner notes that the route requiring the autonomous vehicle (AV) to make a left hand turn through an intersection while not having the right of way as taught by Mallela corresponds to a route containing the claimed second intersection, because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that making a left hand turn through an intersection conventionally requires passing through a lane containing oncoming straight traffic (in a case where local traffic ordinances require driving on the right side of a road)).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a second intersection, the determination section sets a mode related to the automation level to a mode for executing autonomous driving control when the subject vehicle passes through the first intersection, and to a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving when the subject vehicle passes through the second intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for selective intervention via a remote operator with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to stop autonomous control of a vehicle and transfer control to a remote operator as necessary (“If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing manual intervention in cases where autonomous traversal through an intersection is unsafe (“situations that can be accommodated by an implementation of the system of the present teachings can include, but are not limited to including, invalid or possibly invalid perception data gathered by the AV, difficult intersections, obstacles in the intersection, complex intersections, and AV orientation issues.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 18, Madigan in view of Mallela teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections).
Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
and in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a second intersection, and in a case where the subject vehicle is predicted to stop before entering the second intersection due to a traffic signal indicating a stop signal at the second intersection or traffic congestion ("If 9176 the AV does not have the right of way at the intersection, the remote control processor can retain control of the AV until the AV has the right of way. If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046) (The examiner notes that the route requiring the autonomous vehicle (AV) to make a left hand turn through an intersection while not having the right of way as taught by Mallela corresponds to a route in which the vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs as claimed, because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that making a left hand turn through an intersection conventionally requires passing through a lane containing oncoming straight traffic (in a case where local traffic ordinances require driving on the right side of a road)),
the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving after the subject vehicle actually stops ("When a complex intersection is encountered, the AV can stop at the stop line and request remote control assistance at the stop line." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at a second intersection, and in a case where the subject vehicle is predicted to stop before entering the second intersection due to a traffic signal indicating a stop signal at the second intersection or traffic congestion, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving after the subject vehicle actually stops. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for selective intervention via a remote operator with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to stop autonomous control of a vehicle and transfer control to a remote operator as necessary (“If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing manual intervention in cases where autonomous traversal through an intersection is unsafe (“situations that can be accommodated by an implementation of the system of the present teachings can include, but are not limited to including, invalid or possibly invalid perception data gathered by the AV, difficult intersections, obstacles in the intersection, complex intersections, and AV orientation issues.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Ushiba et al. (US 2017/0270798), hereinafter referred to as Ushiba. Ushiba is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle driving control.
Regarding claim 7, Madigan teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Ushiba teaches:
wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn at a first intersection among the plurality of consecutive intersections, the determination section sets a speed limit such that a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at a second or subsequent intersection is lower than a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at the first intersection ("The time of low speed traveling means a case of traveling at a low speed or traveling slowly on a busy street being always crowded with people, on a residential street, on a narrow road, at the time of right or left turn at a street intersection, before or after a pedestrian crossing, on a railroad crossing, or at an exit or entrance of an interchange of a highway." – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0046).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Ushiba such that in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn at a first intersection among the plurality of consecutive intersections, the determination section sets a speed limit such that a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at a second or subsequent intersection is lower than a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at the first intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ushiba’s low speed traveling control with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to control a vehicle speed appropriately to maintain safety for a given operation (“On the other hand, examples of control performed in response to a problem having occurred during automatic driving include speed keeping, traffic lane keeping, moving to a road shoulder, moderate decelerating, and rapid decelerating. These operations are required in the case where decelerating and stopping do not necessarily lead to safety at the time of, for example, traveling at a speed of 100 m/h on a highway, crossing on a railroad crossing, or turning to the right or left.” – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0047). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the low-speed vehicle to safely stop as appropriate without needing to perform quick braking (“As mentioned above, with regard to defect of the function at the time of low speed traveling or at the time of starting or stopping, stopping can be performed safely by not performing quick braking.” – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Madigan in view of Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Ushiba teaches:
wherein the determination section sets, on a road before the subject vehicle enters a second intersection, a speed limit that is lower than a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at the first intersection ("The time of low speed traveling means a case of traveling at a low speed or traveling slowly on a busy street being always crowded with people, on a residential street, on a narrow road, at the time of right or left turn at a street intersection, before or after a pedestrian crossing, on a railroad crossing, or at an exit or entrance of an interchange of a highway." – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0046).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Ushiba such that the determination section sets, on a road before the subject vehicle enters a second intersection, a speed limit that is lower than a speed at which the subject vehicle travels at the first intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ushiba’s low speed traveling control with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to control a vehicle speed appropriately to maintain safety for a given operation (“On the other hand, examples of control performed in response to a problem having occurred during automatic driving include speed keeping, traffic lane keeping, moving to a road shoulder, moderate decelerating, and rapid decelerating. These operations are required in the case where decelerating and stopping do not necessarily lead to safety at the time of, for example, traveling at a speed of 100 m/h on a highway, crossing on a railroad crossing, or turning to the right or left.” – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0047). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the low-speed vehicle to safely stop as appropriate without needing to perform quick braking (“As mentioned above, with regard to defect of the function at the time of low speed traveling or at the time of starting or stopping, stopping can be performed safely by not performing quick braking.” – see at least Ushiba: paragraph 0058).
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba.
Regarding claim 9, Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
wherein the determination section further decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle, under the speed limit, after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection ("When a complex intersection is encountered, the AV can stop at the stop line and request remote control assistance at the stop line." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067) (The examiner notes that given that the autonomous vehicle (AV) as taught by Mallela is described as traveling on a route which may contain multiple intersections, Mallela is considered to include the embodiment in which a stop line exists at a portion of the route after the vehicle traverses a first intersection and before a vehicle traverses a second intersection (i.e., a complex intersection)).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that the determination section further decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle, under the speed limit, after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for stopping an autonomous vehicle upon encountering an intersection with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to allow control to be transferred to a remote operator as necessary (“If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing manual intervention in cases where autonomous traversal through an intersection is unsafe (“situations that can be accommodated by an implementation of the system of the present teachings can include, but are not limited to including, invalid or possibly invalid perception data gathered by the AV, difficult intersections, obstacles in the intersection, complex intersections, and AV orientation issues.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 10, Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
wherein a temporary stop is released in a case where it is confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of a next intersection ("If the remote system is invoked, the remote system can stop the AV at the current stop line. When it is believed that the data received by the AV are correct, and the intersection is safe to cross, autonomous control can be returned to the AV. " – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that a temporary stop is released in a case where it is confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of a next intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for resuming control of a stopped autonomous vehicle with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to allow an autonomous vehicle to proceed with navigation once an environment of an intersection is recognized (“If 9159 the intersection falls into the classification of signed intersections, method 9150 can include following 9169 rules for signed intersections… If 9161 the intersection falls into the classification of a road intersection, method 9150 can include following 9163 rules for signaled road intersections” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing autonomous navigation of an intersection once it is determined that the intersection is safe for traversal (“When remote intersection navigation 9705 deems that the intersection is safe for traversal, remote intersection navigation 9705 can return control to autonomous intersection navigation 9703.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 12, Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Mallela teaches:
wherein in a case where the subject vehicle approaches a next intersection under the speed limit without being confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of the next intersection after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection, the determination section further decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle ("A main function of managers 803 when approaching and traversing an intersection is to provide to MPC 812 the maximum speed that the AV is to travel at each point in the process. To stop the AV, managers 803 can arrange to send a speed of 0.0 m/s to MPC 812. The result is that the AV does not proceed until either managers 803 determine that the AV can be autonomously navigated, or until the control of the AV is taken over remotely." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0070) (The examiner notes that Mallela further teaches that the autonomous vehicle (AV) may stop at a stop line associated with an intersection to determine the environment of the intersection ("The maximum speed, traffic light state, and the current stop line can be used by the intersection navigation processes to carry out rules associated with various classes of intersections. Intersection classes can include signed, signaled, and remotely-controlled. When the AV approaches a current stop line, the AV determines what class of intersection is being encountered, for example, by evaluating information provided to the AV." – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0043)).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Mallela such that in a case where the subject vehicle approaches a next intersection under the speed limit without being confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of the next intersection after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection, the determination section further decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mallela’s method for stopping an autonomous vehicle upon encountering an intersection with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to allow control to be transferred to a remote operator as necessary (“If 9151 the AV is approaching an intersection and the remote control processor has not intervened, and if 9159 the intersection is classified as one that requires remote control, i.e. autonomous travel is not possible, based on considerations such as whether or not the route that the AV is taking requires a left hand turn through the intersection, method 9150 can include stopping 9167 the AV at the current stop line and transferring control to the remote systems.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0046). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing manual intervention in cases where autonomous traversal through an intersection is unsafe (“situations that can be accommodated by an implementation of the system of the present teachings can include, but are not limited to including, invalid or possibly invalid perception data gathered by the AV, difficult intersections, obstacles in the intersection, complex intersections, and AV orientation issues.” – see at least Mallela: paragraph 0045).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba, further in view of Baalke et al. (US 2018/0329418), hereinafter referred to as Baalke. Baalke is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to traverse intersections.
Regarding claim 11, Madigan in view of Mallela and Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Baalke teaches:
wherein in a case where it is not confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of a next intersection within a preset threshold time during the temporary stop, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving ("In this variation, the autonomous vehicle can also prompt a remote human operator to provide real-time assistance if the autonomous vehicle is unable to achieve a crossing confidence score that exceeds the threshold score within a threshold period of time. In particular, the autonomous vehicle can implement methods and techniques described above to query a remote operator portal for manual assistance if the autonomous vehicle has remained stopped at an intersection for more than a threshold duration of time, such as a preset maximum halt duration (e.g., one minute) or a maximum halt duration assigned to the intersection in the navigation map." – see at least Baalke: paragraph 0112).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Baalke such that in a case where it is not confirmed that the subject vehicle has recognized an environment of a next intersection within a preset threshold time during the temporary stop, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Baalke’s threshold stopping time for an autonomous vehicle approaching an intersection with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to allow manual intervention in a case where the autonomous vehicle’s perception system provides insufficient confidence to traverse the intersection (“The autonomous vehicle can: fuse data from various sensors integrated into the autonomous vehicle into a confidence score (hereinafter a “crossing confidence score”) that the autonomous vehicle has right of way to enter the intersection; and then navigate across the intersection—such as by autonomously navigating within the crosswalk—when this confidence score exceeds a threshold score. However, in response to various triggers—such as a crossing confidence score that remains below a threshold score for at least a threshold period of time—the autonomous vehicle can query a remote operator portal to manually indicate whether the autonomous vehicle has right of way to enter the intersection and offload sensor data to the remote operator portal sufficient to enable a remote human operator to provide an accurate response to the autonomous vehicle's query.” – see at least Baalke: paragraph 0010). Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing the autonomous vehicle from getting stuck at an intersection for too long (“The autonomous vehicle can additionally or alternatively query the remote operator portal for manual assistance in other select scenarios, such as when the autonomous vehicle has remained at a sidewalk facing a crosswalk for more than a threshold duration of time (e.g., 90 seconds) without reaching a confidence score exceeding a minimum threshold score, as shown in FIG. 3, thereby preventing the autonomous vehicle from getting “stuck” at the same intersection for too long.” – see at least Baalke: paragraph 0024).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Ushiba, further in view of Otake (US 2018/0037230), hereinafter referred to as Otake. Otake is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle driving control.
Regarding claim 13, Madigan in view of Ushiba teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Otake teaches:
wherein in a case where presence of a following vehicle following the subject vehicle is confirmed after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection, the determination section prohibits temporary stop of the subject vehicle ("In the present specification, the “places where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of the ordinance (stoppage prohibited places)” include places exemplified below. Notably, the ordinance means the ordinance of a nation, a state, or the like... On lane change prohibited roads, if the own vehicle is automatically stopped, the drivers of vehicles following the own vehicle and obeying the ordinance (traffic rule) must brake hard so as to avoid the stopped own vehicle. Therefore, it is inappropriate to automatically stop the vehicle." – see at least Otake: paragraphs 0085-0090).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Otake such that in a case where presence of a following vehicle following the subject vehicle is confirmed after the subject vehicle has turned at the first intersection, the determination section prohibits temporary stop of the subject vehicle. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Otake’s use of stoppage prohibited places with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to prevent a vehicle from autonomously stopping or decelerating at inappropriate places (“Notably, the places where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of the ordinance may be referred to as the “stoppage prohibited place.” The deceleration prohibited section includes the stoppage prohibited place and a place immediately before the stoppage prohibited place.” – see at least Otake: paragraph 0083). Doing so would provide the benefit of prevent inappropriate stoppage of the subject vehicle in a case where a following vehicle would be required to brake hard to avoid collision with the subject vehicle (“On lane change prohibited roads, if the own vehicle is automatically stopped, the drivers of vehicles following the own vehicle and obeying the ordinance (traffic rule) must brake hard so as to avoid the stopped own vehicle. Therefore, it is inappropriate to automatically stop the vehicle.” – see at least Otake: paragraph 0090).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madigan in view of Otake.
Regarding claim 14, Madigan in view of Otake teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan further teaches:
wherein the plurality of consecutive intersections is two consecutive intersections ("A computing device may determine a navigation route for navigating the vehicle from the location to a destination, and the navigation route may comprise a plurality of intersections." – see at least Madigan: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the plurality of intersections as taught by Madigan may include any amount of two or more intersections, which includes the embodiment in which a navigation route comprises exactly two intersections).
Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Otake teaches:
and the determination section sets a mode having a different deceleration limit according to a traveling direction at a second intersection (“The deceleration means determines whether or not the vehicle is present in a deceleration prohibited section determined on the basis of places where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of an ordinance (step 540, step 610), through use of at least either of division line information regarding division lines on left and right sides of a travel path of the vehicle and road information regarding the travel path of the vehicle.” – see at least Otake: paragraph 0006).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Otake such that the determination section sets a mode having a different deceleration limit according to a traveling direction at a second intersection. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Otake’s use of deceleration prohibited sections with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to prevent a vehicle from autonomously decelerating at inappropriate places ("In the present mode, in the case where the road information shows that the place of the vehicle is at least one of an intersection, a railroad crossing, a lane change prohibited point, a merging point, a T-intersection, a place where an indication installed on the basis of an installation guideline of a governmental organization calls drivers' attention to a state of roads or characteristics of traffic and in which careful driving is necessary, and a passing lane, the deceleration means determines that the vehicle is present in the deceleration prohibited section determined on the basis of the places where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of the ordinance." – see at least Otake: paragraph 0025). Doing so would provide the benefit of prevent inappropriate deceleration of the subject vehicle in a case where a surrounding vehicles would be required to brake hard to avoid collision with the subject vehicle (“Stoppage of the vehicle in a passing lane of an expressway or the like may cause a state in which the drives of other vehicles must brake the vehicles hard. Therefore, it is inappropriate to automatically stop the vehicle.” – see at least Otake: paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 15, Madigan in view of Otake teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Madigan does not explicitly disclose, but Otake teaches:
wherein the determination section is configured to restrict strong deceleration in a case of being scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs, compared with a case of being scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur ("In the case where the division line information contains only one of the division lines on the left and right sides of the travel path of the vehicle, it is considered that the vehicle is present at “a T-intersection or a merging point,” which is a place where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of the ordinance, or immediately before the T-intersection or the merging point. Accordingly, in the present mode, deceleration of the vehicle is prohibited when the division lines contained in the division line information are in such a state. As a result, it is possible to decrease the possibility that the vehicle is stopped at “the T-intersection or the merging point.”" – see at least Otake: paragraph 0017).
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 Madigan with these above aforementioned teachings from Otake such that the determination section is configured to restrict strong deceleration in a case of being scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs, compared with a case of being scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Otake’s use of deceleration prohibited sections with Madigan’s vehicle control system in order to prevent a vehicle from autonomously decelerating at inappropriate places ("In the present mode, in the case where the road information shows that the place of the vehicle is at least one of an intersection, a railroad crossing, a lane change prohibited point, a merging point, a T-intersection, a place where an indication installed on the basis of an installation guideline of a governmental organization calls drivers' attention to a state of roads or characteristics of traffic and in which careful driving is necessary, and a passing lane, the deceleration means determines that the vehicle is present in the deceleration prohibited section determined on the basis of the places where automatically stopping the vehicle is inappropriate from the viewpoint of the ordinance." – see at least Otake: paragraph 0025). Doing so would provide the benefit of prevent inappropriate deceleration of the subject vehicle in a case where a surrounding vehicles would be required to brake hard to avoid collision with the subject vehicle (“Stoppage of the vehicle in a passing lane of an expressway or the like may cause a state in which the drives of other vehicles must brake the vehicles hard. Therefore, it is inappropriate to automatically stop the vehicle.” – see at least Otake: paragraph 0096).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is considered to contain limitations which are not taught by the prior art, and would therefore be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
None of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, is considered to teach the claimed limitations recited in claim 4 of “in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at a second intersection, or in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at the first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at the second intersection, the determination section sets a mode for executing autonomous driving control and in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle does not occur at the first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at the second intersection, or in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at the first intersection and is scheduled to make a turn in which planar intersection with an oncoming straight vehicle occurs at the second intersection, the determination section sets a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving”. Although the prior art of record teaches certain aspects of the claimed invention, as set forth above in the sections for claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, the aforementioned limitations regarding setting a mode for executing autonomous driving control and/or setting a mode for causing a driver to execute manual driving based on the recited particular identified situations involving two consecutive intersections is not taught by Madigan, Wiesenberg, Mallela, Ushiba, Baalke, Otake, nor any other combination of the cited prior art references.
While the aforementioned prior art teaches various aspects related to autonomous driving control at intersections, including selectively setting an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode depending on a given identified situation for a plurality of intersections, none of the cited prior art is considered to teach the particular identified situations and corresponding determinations as recited in claim 4. As such, the claimed invention as recited in claim 4 is considered to be distinct from the teachings of the aforementioned prior art.
Therefore, dependent claim 4 is considered to contain subject matter which is allowable over the cited prior art, although the claim remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in further detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali et al. (US 2022/0177006) teaches automated driving control systems and methods based on intersection complexity, including determining a complexity value for an intersection of two or more roads, where the complexity value for the intersection corresponds to a level of complexity for a vehicle to navigate the intersection during autonomous driving, during autonomous driving of a vehicle, controlling at least one of steering of the vehicle, braking of the vehicle, and acceleration of the vehicle, and selectively disabling the autonomous driving and triggering manual driving by a driver of the vehicle when the complexity value of the intersection is greater than a predetermined value.
Beaurepaire et al. (US 2024/0199060) teaches methods for determining an optimal location to wait for a left turn to minimize traffic impact, including an autonomous vehicle drivable at different levels of autonomy, wherein risk factors associated with the left turn at an intersection are determined, and wherein at least a first intersection and a second intersection may be present on the road being traversed by the vehicle.
Xu (US 2023/0192089) teaches methods for autonomous vehicle management at unsignalized intersections, including causing autonomous vehicle to take action automatically based on potential safety concerns at intersections, and providing warnings to manually driven vehicles to allow a driver of such a vehicle to take any necessary precautions based on safety concerns identified at specific intersections.
Zhao (US 2024/0035840) teaches a navigation system for a vehicle which is applicable in autonomous driving scenarios in which a route for an autonomous vehicle includes driving a plurality of sequentially connected intersections.
Budan et al. (US 2024/0371264) teaches a system for traffic control at an intersection, including a set of connected vehicles approaching an intersection, wherein the connected vehicles may each have differing levels of autonomy.
Kato et al. (US 2006/0235615) teaches a driving support system including determining a risk level associated with an upcoming driving maneuver (e.g., a high risk intersection) based on whether a vehicle operating in a manual or automated driving mode.
Kim (US 2023/0061098) teaches a system for performing autonomous driving control at an intersection based on received traffic light status information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
