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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2025-0017121, filed on 02/11/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 11/07/2025 are presently examined.
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:
“display device” in claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 15 is described in Applicant’s specification [0089] “a display (also referred to as a display device) 11”, [0075] “a hard-type interface provided at a predetermined position inside the vehicle 100, or as a soft-type interface that may be touched on the display 108.”, and [0076] “the display 108 may be configured as a touch screen.” Despite no “means” language in the claims, since there is no explicit structure given to display device in the claims, this above interpretation from descriptions in the specification will be used – a type of hard/soft interface touch screen in the vehicle.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a device comprising a processor and memory that stores instructions to be executed by the processor, (i.e. a machine). Claims 11-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 11 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A vehicle control device for a vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising:
a display device; one or more sensors configured to obtain vehicle driving information about the vehicle and external object information about an external object; one or more processors; and a memory storing at least one instruction that is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle control device to:
determine, based on the vehicle driving information and the external object information, that a probability score indicating likelihood of the external object interfering with a driving path of the vehicle is above a threshold value; determine, based on the probability score being above the threshold value, a vehicle control strategy of the vehicle; and
display, via the display device and based on the vehicle control strategy, a planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining based on driving information and external object information a probability score indicating the likelihood of the object interfering with the driving path of the vehicle compared to a threshold, and determining a control strategy of the vehicle accordingly. Determining a control strategy is not controlling the vehicle directly, it is merely deciding what maneuver seems appropriate given the gathered data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control device for a vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising:
a display device; one or more sensors configured to obtain vehicle driving information about the vehicle and external object information about an external object; one or more processors; and a memory storing at least one instruction that is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle control device to:
determine, based on the vehicle driving information and the external object information, that a probability score indicating likelihood of the external object interfering with a driving path of the vehicle is above a threshold value; determine, based on the probability score being above the threshold value, a vehicle control strategy of the vehicle; and
display, via the display device and based on the vehicle control strategy, a planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a sensors to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the mere display of results that were determined by an otherwise mental process performed by generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 11-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller et al. (US 20210053561 A1) in view of Iguichi (US 20180299286 A1), hereinafter referred to as Beller and Iguichi.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Beller discloses A vehicle control device for a vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising:
a display device ([FIG. 6] [0015], [0122-0124] and [0169] “The vehicle 602 may also include … visual emitters to communicate with passengers … emitters may include … display screens” Beller discloses an autonomous vehicle computing device with display screens);
one or more sensors configured to obtain vehicle driving information about the vehicle and external object information about an external object ([FIG. 6] [0018-0019], [0125-0126], [0168] and [0172] Beller discloses camera, lidar, radar, inertial sensors, gps, wheel encoders which summarily detect vehicle position, orientation, velocity, acceleration, detected agent type, position, velocity, acceleration, and trajectory data);
one or more processors; and a memory storing at least one instruction that is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory ([FIG. 6] [0123-0124] [0178-0179] computing device 604 includes processors 616 and memory 618 storing the components responsible for the process.), to cause the vehicle control device to:
determine, based on the vehicle driving information and the external object information, that a probability score indicating likelihood of the external object interfering with a driving path of the vehicle is above a threshold value ([FIGs. 1B, 2, 4, and 6] [0026-0028] [0094-0095] [0101-0109] and [0150-0158] Beller compares the ego position cone along the planned path with the agent cone / probability density function along its predicted trajectory. The percentage of overlapping probability area is the numerical probability score. Beller provides examples above 25%, 50%, or 75% are classified as high collision risk.);
determine, based on the probability score being above the threshold value, a vehicle control strategy of the vehicle ([0031-0033] [0095] [0110] [0158] and [0162] Beller describes an above threshold risk causes the selection of an action: slowing, stopping, yielding, changing planned path or lane. Velocity can be adjusted as a function of the collision probability.); and
Beller fails to disclose display, via the display device and based on the vehicle control strategy, a planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle ([0033] [0110] [0127] [0135-0137] [0169] Beller regenerates the planned path, but does not explicitly disclose that this regenerated path is the content on the display or visual emitting devices 608.).
However, Iguchi teaches display, via the display device and based on the vehicle control strategy, a planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle ([FIGs 6-8] [claims 1-2] [0058] [0065-0068] [0125-0126] Iguchi acquires the route set by the controller, forms the route image, and displays it on the HUD.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller’s interior display screens and automatic route controller with Iguchi’s teaching of using the interior displays of the vehicle to display the route generated by the route controller of the vehicle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the internal displays to display the generated route in order to enable the user to understand what route the autonomous vehicle is taking and whether it’s correct so that they may feel confident in what the vehicle is performing (Iguchi [0006] “whether the scheduled route to be scheduled for the host vehicle under the control of the automatic control unit is a correct route desired by the user, or not, is important in bringing the feeling of security to the user.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Beller discloses The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the external object information comprises movement information about the external object, and wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to further cause the vehicle control device to: determine, based on an object type of the external object and based on the movement information about the external object, an expected movement path of the external object ([0026-0027] [0041] [0126] [0128] [0138-0139] [0150-0154] Beller classified an agent as a car, pedestrian, cyclist, animal, etc. The system obtains the position, direction, velocity, acceleration, and predicts the trajectories or position cones from the semantic classification and observed motion of the agent.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Beller discloses The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to further cause the vehicle control device to: determine, based on the expected movement path of the external object and the vehicle driving information, the probability score ([0026-0028] [0101-0109] [0150] [0155-0158] Beller forms a vehicle cone from the ego velocities along the planned ego path and an agent cone from the velocities along the predicted agent path, then derives the collision probability from their overlap.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Beller discloses using the expected agent path in the collision-risk determination that selects a lateral lane change or an in-lane path change, and the selected lateral strategy changes/regenerates the planned ego path. However, Beller does not disclose displaying this on an interior screen.
Beller fails to explicitly disclose discloses The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle control device to display the planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle by: determining, based on the expected movement path of the external object and the vehicle control strategy, at least one of an area, color, contrast, brightness, shape, or chroma of the planned autonomous driving path being displayed via the display device.
However, Iguchi teaches cause the vehicle control device to display the planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle by: determining, based on the expected movement path of the external object and the vehicle control strategy, at least one of an area, color, contrast, brightness, shape, or chroma of the planned autonomous driving path being displayed via the display device ([FIGs 6-8 and 10-11] Iguchi teaches in [0073] that the preceding vehicle triggers the display to invoke an emphasizing area and shape 564 which emphasizes the presence of the preceding vehicle, and [0065] [0067-0068] the displayed shape of the displayed planned route is adjusted to be straight or curved and lane-control state is adjusted with color.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller’s interior display screens and automatic route controller with Iguchi’s teaching of using the interior displays of the vehicle to display the route generated by the route controller of the vehicle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the internal displays to display the generated route in order to enable the user to understand what route the autonomous vehicle is taking and whether it’s correct so that they may feel confident in what the vehicle is performing (Iguchi [0006] “whether the scheduled route to be scheduled for the host vehicle under the control of the automatic control unit is a correct route desired by the user, or not, is important in bringing the feeling of security to the user.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Beller discloses The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy of the vehicle by: determining the vehicle control strategy further based on the expected movement path of the external object and the vehicle driving information ([0026-0028] [0101-0110] [0150-0162] Beller discloses that the agent cone is derived from the predicted object trajectory and the vehicle cone is derived using the ego path/velocity. The overlap of the two results in the risk that is used to select the corresponding action.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Beller discloses The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: determining at least one of: whether to perform lateral control of the vehicle, whether to overtake the external object, or whether to follow the external object ([0033] [0083] [0110] [0162] Beller selects whether to change lanes or alter an in-lane path.).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Beller discloses The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: adjusting, based on at least one of a road speed limit or a traffic regulation, the vehicle control strategy ([0026-0027] [0051] [0083] [0110-0111] [0163] Beller uses the road speed limit and laws to constrain the probable ego and agent acceleration, velocity, position cones, and probability distributions. These change the resulting overlap of collision probability which subsequently effects the determined action of slowing, stopping, yielding, or lateral change. Examiner notes the BRI of this limitation can mean at least two different things: adjusting the vehicle control strategy while maintaining traffic laws, or use known traffic laws to predict trajectories of external agents and subsequently adjusting the vehicle control strategy with that in mind. This limitation is broadly worded as written now.).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller in view of Iguchi, further in view of Gross et al. (US 20200050195 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gross.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Beller discloses that the perception, planning, and collision avoidance components send their outputs at a predetermined frequency or after a duration of time ([0175]).
Beller fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to display the planned autonomous driving path of the vehicle by: adjusting, based on updated external object information about the external object, the expected movement path of the external object; modifying, based on the adjusted expected movement path of the external object, the vehicle control strategy; and adjusting, based on the modified vehicle control strategy, at least one of an area, color, contrast, brightness, shape, or chroma of the planned autonomous driving path being displayed via the display device.
Gross teaches adjusting, based on updated external object information about the external object, the expected movement path of the external object and modifying, based on the adjusted expected movement path of the external object, the vehicle control strategy ([0036-0037] [0050-0051] and [claims 16 and 19] Gross recalculates the object trajectory to determine whether the previous collision prediction has changed and whether to initiate or abort the currently decided ego maneuver. Gross in claim 19 aborts the lane-change instruction based on an updated object trajectory.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Gross’ teaching of periodically updating the predicted external object trajectories and modifying the ego trajectory if collision predictions have changed. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to do so in order to improve safety and confidence (Gross [0009] [0037-0038] [0051] periodic evaluation of the object relative to the lane-change region improves safety and confidence.).
Further, Iguchi teaches adjusting, based on the modified vehicle control strategy, at least one of an area, color, contrast, brightness, shape, or chroma of the planned autonomous driving path being displayed via the display device ([FIGs 6-8 and 10-11] Iguchi teaches in [0073] that the preceding vehicle triggers the display to invoke an emphasizing area and shape 564 which emphasizes the presence of the preceding vehicle, and [0065] [0067-0068] the displayed shape of the displayed planned route is adjusted to be straight or curved and lane-control state is adjusted with color.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller’s interior display screens and automatic route controller with Iguchi’s teaching of using the interior displays of the vehicle to display the route generated by the route controller of the vehicle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the internal displays to display the generated route in order to enable the user to understand what route the autonomous vehicle is taking and whether it’s correct so that they may feel confident in what the vehicle is performing (Iguchi [0006] “whether the scheduled route to be scheduled for the host vehicle under the control of the automatic control unit is a correct route desired by the user, or not, is important in bringing the feeling of security to the user.”).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller in view of Iguchi, further in view of Aine (US 0180079420 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aine.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Beller fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: determining at least one of: a first vehicle control strategy comprising following the external object without performing lateral control of the vehicle, a second vehicle control strategy comprising overtaking the external object without performing the lateral control of the vehicle, a third vehicle control strategy comprising following the external object and performing the lateral control of the vehicle, or a fourth vehicle control strategy comprising overtaking the external object and performing the lateral control of the vehicle.
However, Aine teaches cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: determining at least one of: a first vehicle control strategy comprising following the external object without performing lateral control of the vehicle, a second vehicle control strategy comprising overtaking the external object without performing the lateral control of the vehicle, a third vehicle control strategy comprising following the external object and performing the lateral control of the vehicle, or a fourth vehicle control strategy comprising overtaking the external object and performing the lateral control of the vehicle ([0004-0007] [0016] [0023-0029] [0034-0042] [FIGs 1-2 and 6] [especially 0024, 0026, and 0028] Aine determines a binary overtake decision in regards to another vehicle, determining the motion plan that moves the ego vehicle from its current lane into the target lane and controls the steering, which would be overtaking and lateral control.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller with Aine’s teaching of determining whether to overtake another vehicle with lateral control and an overtaking maneuver. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use lateral control and overtaking when deciding to overtake another vehicle with the collision risk determination provided by Beller in order to produce collision-free lane change trajectories, producing a predictable result of a risk-responsive overtaking maneuvers with lateral control (Aine [0003] [0007] [0016] [0023] [0029]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beller in view of Iguchi, further in view of Blayvas et al. (US 20170090478 A1), hereinafter referred to as Blayvas.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Beller discloses contextual and assertiveness factors to the determination of its motion planning ([0026-0033]) but fails to consider the driving purpose associated with the vehicle.
Beller fails to explicitly disclose The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction is configured, when executed by the one or more processors communicating with the memory, to cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: adjusting, based on a driving purpose associated with the vehicle, the vehicle control strategy.
However, Blayvas teaches cause the vehicle to determine the vehicle control strategy by: adjusting, based on a driving purpose associated with the vehicle, the vehicle control strategy (0021-0031] [0034-0035] [0046] Blayvas teaches different driving missions effecting optimal vehicle naviation in regards to safety, time, fuel, cost, and comfort, and these parameters are adjusted according to weights proportional to their importance relative to the driving mission.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beller’s contextual motion planning with Blayvas’ teaching of driving missions effecting vehicle driving performance and navigation. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use the driving mission of the vehicle to modify the vehicle control strategy in order to provide a predictable navigation optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights