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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 1/14/2026. Claims 1, 6-9, 14, and 17-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All pending claims therefore have an effective filing date of 3/7/2019.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 7 of 11, filed 1/14/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Kawamata does not specify a location to which the host vehicle 1 travels backwards and does not disclose determining such a location based on a lane width of the lane R2 in which the vehicle 100 travels, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kawamata discloses the determination of road width R2 in which the other vehicle travels, and based upon the road width R2 as well as the other vehicle’s path AR, the host vehicle 1 determines whether to drive forwards or backwards to avoid collision with the other vehicle 100. Specifics of the exact position in which the host vehicle 1 stops can be seen in Fig 5; ST1 indicative of a position in which collision is likely, and ST indicative of a safe position that avoids collision, after reversing host vehicle 1.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9 of 11, filed 1/14/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Rosenberg does not consider the width of the traffic lane of the other vehicle, to which the Examiner agrees. While Rosenberg teaches detection of lane widths, the rejection has been updated to cite primary reference Kawamata disclosing this information, as can be found in paragraph [0124] and Figure 11. The host vehicle 1 detects a perpendicular lane width in which the other vehicle 100 is traveling, and proceeds to determine scenarios to avoid collision, such as pulling forwards or reversing.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the teachings of Rosenberg are still applicable, specifically in determining lane width thresholds.
Lastly, Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10 of 11, filed 1/14/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Morgan does not teach the retreat of a vehicle at a traffic junction, or controlling vehicle to a rearward retreat position based on a lane width of a traffic junction, to which the partially Examiner agrees. Kawamata discloses the retreat of a vehicle at a traffic junction, as well as controlling vehicle to a rearward retreat location based on a lane width of a traffic junction.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 14, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamata (US-2016/0280266; already of record) in view of Rosenberg (US-2007/0159354; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamata discloses a method for conducting a motor vehicle in an at least partially automated manner (see Kawamata at least Abs), comprising:
generating and outputting a plurality of approach signals for controlling a transverse and/or a longitudinal conduction of the motor vehicle in order to conduct the motor vehicle in at least a partially automated manner in such a way that the motor vehicle approaches a traffic junction (see Kawamata at least Fig 4, [0035]-[0036] "...FIG. 1 is a flowchart that shows the operation of the vehicle control system according to the embodiment of the invention... FIG. 5 is a view that illustrates a situation that brake control according to the embodiment is executed... FIG. 11 is a view that illustrates backward travel control according to the embodiment... As shown in FIG. 2, the host vehicle 1 according to the embodiment includes the vehicle control system 2, an engine 5, a transmission 6, wheels 3 and brake devices 4. The vehicle control system 2 includes an ECU 50, a shift control device 21, a steering control device 12, a brake control device 10, a right side sensor 32R, a left side sensor 32L and a rear sensor 33." and [0049] “As shown in FIG. 3, the ECU 50 includes a traveling area estimation unit 51, a collision possibility determination unit 52 and an assist method selection unit 53. The traveling area estimation unit 51 estimates the traveling area of a crossing target that travels on a course ahead of the host vehicle 1. Estimation of the traveling area will be described with reference to FIG. 4. FIG. 4 shows a state where the host vehicle 1 travels on a first course R1 and another vehicle 100 travels on a second course R2. The first course R1 and the second course R2 intersect with each other at right angles to form a T-intersection...”);
receiving a plurality of environmental signals which represent an environment of the motor vehicle while it approaches the traffic junction (see Kawamata at least [0036] "As shown in FIG. 2, the host vehicle 1 according to the embodiment includes the vehicle control system 2, an engine 5, a transmission 6, wheels 3 and brake devices 4. The vehicle control system 2 includes an ECU 50, a shift control device 21, a steering control device 12, a brake control device 10, a right side sensor 32R, a left side sensor 32L and a rear sensor 33." and [0041]-[0042] "The right side sensor 32R detects a target to the right side of the host vehicle 1. The right side sensor 32R is arranged at the right front end of the host vehicle 1. The left side sensor 32L detects a target to the left side of the host vehicle 1. The left side sensor 32L is arranged at the left front end of the host vehicle 1. The rear sensor 33 detects a target to the rear of the host vehicle 1. The rear sensor 33 is arranged at the rear end of the host vehicle 1... Each of the sensors 32R, 32L, 33 has the function of detecting a target that is present around the host vehicle 1. Each of the sensors 32R, 32L, 33 further has the function of calculating the direction of a detected target with reference to the host vehicle 1, a distance between the host vehicle 1 and the detected target and a relative velocity between the detected target and the host vehicle 1.");
determining based on the environmental signals that the motor vehicle may continue to further approach the traffic junction, must stop, and/or must retreat (see Kawamata at least Fig 1, [0053] “…When there is a possibility that the host vehicle 1 collides with the other vehicle 100, the ECU 50 is able to assist in avoiding a collision with the other vehicle 100 by decelerating the host vehicle 1…” [0066]-[0072] “…In step S20, the ECU 50 determines whether there is a crossing target... The crossing target that is subjected to determination here is a possible target that comes into collision with the host vehicle 1 laterally or obliquely. That is, a target that travels in a direction that intersects with the front-rear direction (see the line segment X-X in FIG. 6) of the host vehicle 1 is a target that is subjected to determination as to whether there is a crossing target… The details of an alarm include, for example, information that a collision of the host vehicle 1 with the other vehicle 100 is predicted, information that collision avoidance operation is required, a message prompting braking operation, a message prompting emergency avoidance brake, and the like...” and [0125] "When the first course R1 and the second course R2 intersect with each other as not a T-intersection but a crossroad, there is a possibility that a collision with the other vehicle 100 is avoidable by causing the host vehicle 1 to travel forward..."), the environmental signals are processed in order to detect an object that comes closer to the traffic junction from a different direction than the motor vehicle (see Kawamata at least Fig 4 and [0049] “As shown in FIG. 3, the ECU 50 includes a traveling area estimation unit 51, a collision possibility determination unit 52 and an assist method selection unit 53. The traveling area estimation unit 51 estimates the traveling area of a crossing target that travels on a course ahead of the host vehicle 1... The host vehicle 1 travels on the first course R1 toward the second course R2. The other vehicle 100 travels on the second course R2 toward an intersection with the first course R1. In the example of FIG. 4, the other vehicle 100 travels from the right side toward the left side in the vehicle width direction of the host vehicle 1...”), the determining process is carried out during the approach to the traffic junction depending on the detection of the object (see Kawamata at least Fig 1, [0067] “…The ECU 50 determines on the basis of the detected result of the right side sensor 32R whether there is a crossing target to the vehicle right side of the host vehicle 1…” [0072] “In step S120, the assist method selection unit 53 executes first assistance. The first assistance is the alarm control for informing the driver of the collision possibility or required operation by the alarm device 41. The assist method selection unit 53 causes the alarm device 41 to execute the alarm control. The details of an alarm include, for example, information that a collision of the host vehicle 1 with the other vehicle 100 is predicted, information that collision avoidance operation is required, a message prompting braking operation, a message prompting emergency avoidance brake, and the like. When step S120 is executed, the process proceeds to step S10.” and [0074] “In step S130, the assist method selection unit 53 executes second assistance. The second assistance includes the alarm control and stop assisting control. The stop assisting control includes, for example, the deceleration control and the brake assist control…”) and, when detecting the object, a lane width of a traffic lane in which the object is currently located is identified based on the environmental signals, the determining process is carried out during the approach to the traffic junction depending on the lane width of the traffic lane (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0124] "...For example, this will be described with reference to FIG. 11. After the host vehicle 1 has stopped at the stoppable position ST, it is presumable that it is possible to avoid a collision with the other vehicle 100 by causing the host vehicle 1 to travel forward. As an example, there is a case where the course width of the second course R2 is wide and it is allowed to stop the host vehicle 1 in an area inside the second course R2 and outside the traveling area AR.") … when the determination is made that the motor vehicle must retreat from the traffic junction (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0127] "In the above-described embodiment, the backward travel control is automatically executed; instead, control for assisting the driver in reverse operation may be executed. For example, the host vehicle 1 has stopped as a result of the stop assisting control, the driver may be prompted to carry out reverse operation by placing the host vehicle 1 in a backward travelable state...") a rearward retreat position at which the object can pass the traffic junction without blockage and a trajectory to the rearward retreat position are identified based on the environmental signals (see Kawamata at least Fig 5, Fig 11, [0077] "...As a result of determination of step S70, when it is determined that a collision is avoidable if the host vehicle 1 is allowed to travel backward (Yes in step S70), the process proceeds to step S140; otherwise (No in step S70), the process proceeds to step S80." and [0125] "When the first course R1 and the second course R2 intersect with each other as not a T-intersection but a crossroad, there is a possibility that a collision with the other vehicle 100 is avoidable by causing the host vehicle 1 to travel forward..."), the determining process is carried out depending on the lane width of the traffic lane in which the object travels to the traffic junction from the different direction than the motor vehicle and the rearward retreat position is identified based on the lane width of the traffic lane of the object (see Kawamata at least Fig 5, Fig 11, [0050], "Because the right side sensor 32R of the host vehicle 1 is arranged at the front end of the host vehicle 1, the right side sensor 32R detects the other vehicle 100. The right side sensor 32R calculates a relative position and relative velocity of the other vehicle 100 to the host vehicle 1. The right side sensor 32R outputs the calculated information to the traveling area estimation unit 51..." [0059] "...FIG. 5 shows an example of the stoppable position ST at which it is determined that a collision is avoidable and an example of the stoppable position ST1 at which it is determined that a collision is unavoidable..." and [0124] "...For example, this will be described with reference to FIG. 11. After the host vehicle 1 has stopped at the stoppable position ST, it is presumable that it is possible to avoid a collision with the other vehicle 100 by causing the host vehicle 1 to travel forward. As an example, there is a case where the course width of the second course R2 is wide and it is allowed to stop the host vehicle 1 in an area inside the second course R2 and outside the traveling area AR."); and
generating and outputting control signals for controlling the transverse and/or longitudinal conduction of the motor vehicle based on the determining process in order to conduct the motor vehicle in at least a partially automated manner according to the determining process in such a way that the motor vehicle continues to approach the traffic junction, stops, or retreats (see Kawamata at least Fig 1, [0074] “In step S130, the assist method selection unit 53 executes second assistance. The second assistance includes the alarm control and stop assisting control. The stop assisting control includes, for example, the deceleration control and the brake assist control…” and [0107]-[0108] “In step S150, the assist method selection unit 53 executes fifth assistance. The fifth assistance includes the alarm control, the stop assisting control and control for assisting in causing the stopped host vehicle 1 to travel backward. The stop assisting control is, for example, similar to that in the above-described second assistance. The control for assisting in backward travel according to the present embodiment is the backward travel control for automatically causing the host vehicle 1 to travel backward…”), the control signals are generated and output depending on the rearward retreat position to conduct the motor vehicle along the trajectory to the rearward retreat position in at least a partially automated manner (see Kawamata at least Fig 5, Fig 11 and [0107]-[0108] “In step S150, the assist method selection unit 53 executes fifth assistance. The fifth assistance includes the alarm control, the stop assisting control and control for assisting in causing the stopped host vehicle 1 to travel backward. The stop assisting control is, for example, similar to that in the above-described second assistance. The control for assisting in backward travel according to the present embodiment is the backward travel control for automatically causing the host vehicle 1 to travel backward…”).
However Kawamata does not explicitly disclose the following:
…a determination is made that the motor vehicle may further approach the [region] if the lane width is greater than a predefined traffic lane threshold value, and a determination is made that the motor vehicle must stop or retreat if the lane width is less than or equal to the predefined traffic lane threshold value…
Rosenberg, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a determination is made that the motor vehicle may further approach the [region] if the lane width is greater than a predefined traffic lane threshold value, and a determination is made that the motor vehicle must stop or retreat if the lane width is less than or equal to the predefined traffic lane threshold value (see Rosenberg at least Fig 2A, Fig 2B, Fig 3A, Fig 3B, and [0062] “In this particular embodiment, the first assessment that is performed by the local computing device of each ground vehicle in the target set is a determination regarding the proximity of that ground vehicle with respect to the REV. This assessment is performed by a computing device of each ground vehicle by comparing the current location of that ground vehicle with the current location of the REV. If the distance between the REV and the ground vehicle is greater than a defined proximity threshold, then it is determined that the driver does not need to be informed and/or that no evasive action is required. If the distance is less than the proximity threshold, the driver may need to be alerted and/or instructed to take evasive action and so the assessment continues with regard to other factors... As was true in the proximity threshold used by the VLS, the proximity thresholds used in the current assessment step may be fixed values or may be of a value that is be dependent upon factors such as the size of the road, the speed of the REV, the speed limit of the road, and/or the current traffic conditions.”) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as performed at a traffic junction such as disclosed by Kawamata with road width and corresponding distance considerations such as taught by Rosenberg with a reasonable expectation of success so as to provide safe maneuvering instruction dependent upon road dimensions (see Rosenberg at least [0003] and [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 1 wherein, when detecting the object, whether the object may pass the traffic junction without blockage when the motor vehicle stops is identified based on the environmental signals (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 6, wherein the determining process is carried out depending on whether the object may pass the traffic junction without blockage when the motor vehicle stops (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0124]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 1, wherein, when detecting the object, whether the object is able to avoid the motor vehicle by dodging is identified based on the environmental signals (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 8, wherein the determining process is carried out depending on whether the object is able to avoid the motor vehicle by dodging (see Kawamata at least Fig 11 and [0124]).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 1, wherein an object width of the object is identified based on the environmental signals (see Kawamata at least Fig 11, [0050], and [0124]) and the rearward retreat position is identified based on the object width (see Kawamata at least Fig 5, Fig 11, [0050], and [0124]).
Regarding claim 17, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the method of claim 1, wherein the object is another motor vehicle (see Kawamata at least Fig 4 and [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach a device embodied to carry out all steps of the method of claim 1 (see Kawamata at least Fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach a motor vehicle comprising the device of claim 18 (see Kawamata at least Fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing on a computer program comprising commands which, when executing the computer program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (see Kawamata at least [0044] and [0132]).
Regarding claim 21, Kawamata in view of Rosenberg teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, Kawamata discloses the following:
…after a full passage of the object through the traffic junction is determined, a further approaching process of the motor vehicle toward the traffic junction is started in an at least partly automated manner (see Kawamata at least [0067]-[0068] "In step S20, the ECU 50 determines whether there is a crossing target... As a result of determination of step S20, when it is determined that there is a crossing target (Yes in step S20), the process proceeds to step S30; otherwise (No in step S20), the process returns to step S10.").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schamp (US-2016/0034771) details the use of sensors to detect a space behind a vehicle, specifically to align with markings on a road surface.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663