DETAILED ACTION
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 06/27/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17-20 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 09/08/2025:
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim(s) 9 has/have been indicated as amended.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 and 18 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 19 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14 and 16 remain(s) cancelled.
Claim(s) 20 has/have been indicated as newly added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/08/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered but have NOT been persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant first argues: “The Office asserts that Oyama teaches the feature of "determine, when the vehicle enters an entrance lane, a vehicle collision index for the entrance lane by numerically calculating a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the one or more external objects based on the position information or the movement information of the one or more external objects," citing to Fig. 4 and para. [0043]. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Oyama talks about calculating traffic density K to detect congestion. It does not calculate a "possibility of collision" in the sense of a collision probability or index. The Office interprets "traffic density" as a stand-in for "vehicle collision index," arguing they are patentably indistinct, but in truth Oyama does not explicitly calculate a collision possibility, it calculates how many vehicles are in a segment, and then compares that to a congestion threshold. Traffic density and a vehicle collision index are patentably distinct.”
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant has cited only Fig. 4 and ¶: 0043 of Oyama in view of the cited claim limitation; however, the Examiner cited at least Fig. 4 and ¶: 0031-0035 and 0038 in the rejection of the cited limitation filed 06/12/2025 (line 170).
Second, the Applicant has more narrowly interpreted the terms “vehicle collision index” and “possibility of collision” in their argument than one of ordinary skill in the art would given the context. In particular, the Applicant argues that the term “possibility of collision” is a collision probability or index; however, the Applicant’s specification makes no mention of the world “probability” at any point. Furthermore the term index is known to mean: “a number (such as a ratio) derived from a series of observations and used as an indicator or measure” to those of ordinary skill in the art (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/index).
In fact, the Applicant’s specification clarifies the term “vehicle collision index” is merely a broad indicator of traffic congestion in a particular travel lane as follows: “The determining unit 20 may set the vehicle collision index calculated by numerically calculating the possibility of collision between the vehicle 100 and the external obstacle 200 based on the position information or the movement information of the external obstacle 200, sensed by the sensing unit 10. The vehicle collision index may be set high when the entrance lane is congested due to a large number of external obstacles 200 on the entrance lane, and may be set low when the entrance is not congested;” [Applicant’s Specification: ¶: 0061-0062].
The Applicant’s specification provides no further explanation or clarification regarding calculation of the broadly recited numerically calculated “possibility of collision” other than the above recitation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to interpret at least the calculated traffic density disclosed by Oyama as patentably indistinct from the Applicant’s broadly recited numerically calculated “possibility of collision.”
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant next argues: “Again, Oyama measures density K from probe vehicles and infrastructure sensors.
Density is about traffic flow, not a collision index. Oyama does not mention a "vehicle collision index" at all, nor how to weight position/movement data to determine one.
Thus, while the Office asserts that Oyama discloses "a vehicle collision index" by calculating traffic density K, treating it as patentably indistinct from a collision probability, Oyama calculates only traffic density as an occupancy count, and does not calculate a collision possibility based on position or movement data of external objects. Oyama provides no teaching of a collision probability index or weighting such data as claimed.”
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the teaching regarding “weighting such data” is moot, as the Examiner did not rely on the disclosure of Oyama to reject this limitation, rather the teachings of Hashimoto.
Second, as with the above, the Applicant attempts to more narrowly define the broadly recited “vehicle collision index” than the Applicant’s specification supports by defining it as a “collision probability.” This is not the known definition of the cited terminology, nor does the Applicant’s specification provide disclosure defining the term “vehicle collision index” as any form of calculated probability. As a result, as was concluded in the argument above, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to interpret at least the calculated traffic density disclosed by Oyama as patentably indistinct from the Applicant’s broadly recited numerically calculated “possibility of collision.”
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant finally argues: “Hashimoto (paragraph [0056]) discusses performing a weighted average of inter-vehicle distances to estimate lane vehicle density. This weighting is to smooth lane density data for traffic flow balancing, but does not address a collision index of a vehicle in an entrance lane or its likelihood of collision with surrounding objects based on their position/movement.
Therefore, combining Oyama and Hashimoto would at best yield a weighted lane density measure, but not the claimed "vehicle collision index" calculated as a numerical collision possibility based on weighted position or movement data.”
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant argues a limitation which is not claimed, namely that the broadly recited “vehicle collision index” is calculated as a numerical collision possibility based on weighted position or movement data. However, the claimed invention recites: “a weight value is set to information of the one or more external objects” rather than the previously recited “position information or movement information of the one or more external objects.” Therefore in order to disclose the cited limitation, Hashimoto must simply disclose weighting of any information from one or more external objects when determining “a vehicle collision index,” which the Examiner asserts is the case.
In particular, the at least cited paragraphs and figures of Hashimoto disclose calculating a weighted average of weighted inter-vehicle distances in order to determine a density of vehicles traveling in a particular lane. As argued above, the Examiner asserts that is in reasonable to interpret the calculation of lane-level traffic density as patentably indistinct from the broadly recited “vehicle collision index” based on the Applicant’s disclosure and known definitions for these terms in the art. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to interpret at least the calculated traffic density disclosed by Hashimoto using a weighted average of inter-vehicle distances as patentably indistinct from the Applicant’s broadly recited using “weight value is set to information of the one or more external objects” when calculating a vehicle collision index.
With respect to claim 10, the Applicant repeats similar arguments as the response to claim 1, and therefore the Examiner traverses these arguments using the same grounds found in the above Examiner’s Responses in order to maintain the rejection of claim 10 (and all claims which depend therefrom).
With respect to claim 20, the Applicant has provided an argument pertaining to a claim limitation that has not been previously examined. Therefore it is a moot argument to overcome a prior art rejection that has not yet been provided. Furthermore, it is erroneous in view of at least ¶: 0022 of Oyama, which discloses updating the congestion indication for a plurality of travel lanes at a “predetermined time interval (1 to 2 [min]).”
As a result, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been maintained.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 20, the Examiner points to the following claim limitation(s):
“determine a change in congestion state of the entrance lane over a predetermined period of time.”
The Examiner searched the Applicant’s specification, including Fig. 4 as well as ¶: 0074-0077, which the Applicant stated disclosed the amended claim limitations in the Arguments/Remarks filed 09/08/2025, and concluded that the Applicant’s specification did not demonstrate “express, implicit or inherent disclosure” of the newly claimed subject as required by MPEP§§ 2163.
In fact, the Applicant’s specification provides one recitation of the term “time” in paragraph 0005 as follows: “With the recent development of autonomous driving vehicles, when the driver shows an intent to change lanes, the vehicle merely determines based on the conventional rear detecting sensor whether lane change is possible within a specific time from this point, and performs the lane change.”
However, the Examiner has found no additional recitations of the term “time;” recitations of the term “change” in the context of monitoring changes in of the congestion state over time; or any form of predetermined/threshold time, duration or period let alone disclosure to support recitation of: “wherein the processor is further configured to determine a change in congestion state of the entrance lane over a predetermined period of time before controlling driving of the vehicle to continue traveling on the entrance lane or to enter the side lane.”
Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the Applicant does not possess sufficient written description to claim such a limitation, as presented.
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 of this title, 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-13, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OYAMA (United States Patent Publication 2020/0312129 A1) in view of Hashimoto et al. (United States Patent 2020/0241547 A1), referenced as Oyama and Hashimoto, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Oyama discloses:
“A control system of a vehicle, comprising: a sensor configured to sense position information or movement information of one or more external objects located on a side or a rear of the vehicle” [Oyama; "By the way, the traffic information for the each section aggregated by the traffic information acquirer 12 is based on the traffic information acquired by the traffic information centers 2. In the each traffic information center 2, the traffic density K′ of each section is determined based on the probe information acquired from the probe vehicle, the various vehicle sensing sensors 3 installed in advance on roads, and the traffic information obtained from the prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0033];
“and one or more processors configured to: determine, when the vehicle enters an entrance lane, a vehicle collision index for the entrance lane by numerically calculating a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the one or more external objects based on the position information or the movement information of the one or more external objects” [Oyama; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Oyama discloses calculating traffic density(patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly defined "numerically calculating a possibility of collision" for a plurality of entrance lanes entering a travel section of a road. Oyama further discloses: "Therefore, in the present embodiment, vehicles entering the section A for which a congestion indication is detected, and the traffic density K′ is corrected with the number C of these vehicles passing through the section A to detect an actual traffic density (real traffic density) K;" ¶: 0038; See also: Fig. 4; ¶: 0031-0035];
“determine that the entrance lane is congested when the vehicle collision index is greater than or equal to a preset value” [Oyama; "Thereafter, the processing proceeds to step S6 to compare the actual traffic density K to a threshold value for determining a congestion indication (indication determination threshold value) Ko for each traveling lane, and check whether there is a traveling lane exhibiting a congestion indication. In one embodiment, the processing in step S6 may serve as a “congestion indication determining unit”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0043;
"In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045; See also: Fig. 5 & 6; ¶: 0031-0035];
“if the entrance lane is determined to be congested, sense position information or movement information of one or more external objects located in a side lane next to the entrance lane” [Oyama; "In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045];
“and control driving of the vehicle to continue traveling on the entrance lane or enter the side lane based on whether the entrance lane is congested” [Oyama; "In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045];
“wherein the vehicle collision index for the entrance lane is determined based on the position information or movement information of the one or more external objects. as received by the sensor” [Oyama; "Therefore, in the present embodiment, vehicles entering the section A for which a congestion indication is detected, and the traffic density K′ is corrected with the number C of these vehicles passing through the section A to detect an actual traffic density (real traffic density) K;" ¶: 0038; See also: Fig. 4; ¶: 0031-0035].
Oyama does not specifically state:
“and wherein when the vehicle collision index is determined, a weight value is set to information of the one or more external objects.”
Hashimoto, which is in the same field of invention of vehicle control systems, teaches: “and wherein when the vehicle collision index is determined, a weight value is set to information of the one or more external objects” [Hashimoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hashimoto discloses calculating a vehicle density for a vehicles traveling in a particular lane (L1, Fig. 3 for example). In one disclosed example, Hashimoto discloses performing a weighted average ("taking the average value after assigning weights to the respective inter-vehicle distances;" ¶: 0056) when performing the lane density calculations(patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "vehicle collision index"); See also: ¶: 0054, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 2, Oyama does not specifically state: “wherein the sensor is further configured to sense the position information or movement information of the one or more external objects by being connected to a camera sensor or a radar sensor mounted on the vehicle.”
Hashimoto teaches: “wherein the sensor is further configured to sense the position information or movement information of the one or more external objects by being connected to a camera sensor or a radar sensor mounted on the vehicle” [Hashimoto; "In the present embodiment, recognition information obtained by the autonomous recognition sensors in the respective vehicles, and recognition information obtained by recognition devices installed on roads are collected by a server on the Internet. The server processes the collected information, and calculates a vehicle density in each lane in each road. Under the precondition like this, the mobile communication device 41 transmits information concerning the road on which the own vehicle is traveling to the server, and receives the vehicle density in each of the lanes of the road on which the own vehicle is traveling;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 3, Oyama discloses: “wherein the sensor is connected to an infrastructure or another vehicle that provides traffic information of whether the entrance lane is congested via wireless communication” [Oyama; "By the way, the traffic information for the each section aggregated by the traffic information acquirer 12 is based on the traffic information acquired by the traffic information centers 2. In the each traffic information center 2, the traffic density K′ of each section is determined based on the probe information acquired from the probe vehicle, the various vehicle sensing sensors 3 installed in advance on roads, and the traffic information obtained from the prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0033;
Furthermore, Oyama discloses that the instructions to change lanes are sent to the respective vehicles through a cloud server, which is a form of wireless communication; Fig. 1; ¶: 0035].
With respect to claim 4, Oyama discloses:
“wherein the sensor is further configured to sense the position information or movement information of the one or more external objects through a camera sensor or a radar sensor” [Oyama; "For example, the private traffic information center collects probe information acquired from each contracted probe vehicle, and transmits the traffic information obtained based on the collected information to the cloud server 1. Furthermore, for example, the traffic information center of the public institution collects traffic information for each traveling lane in each section which is acquired from various vehicle sensing sensors (cameras, traffic counters, etc.) 3 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) serving as vehicle sensors installed in advance on roads, prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc., and transmits the collected traffic information to the cloud server 1;" Fig. 5 & 6; ¶: 0019];
“and sense the number and speed of the one or more external objects by being connected to an infrastructure or another vehicle that provides traffic information via wireless communication” [Oyama; "As illustrated in FIG. 3, the probe information to be transmitted from the each probe vehicle to the traffic information center 2 includes a vehicle ID of an own vehicle, a transmission date and time, a current position (latitude, longitude), a vehicle speed, a traveling direction, etc., and a traffic information center 2 that has received this probe information acquires traffic information (crowded state, congestion information, etc.) for the each predetermined section based on this information;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0020].
With respect to claim 6, Oyama does not specifically state: “wherein the processor is further configured to limit a moving speed of the vehicle or perform control to increase a steering angle of the vehicle when the vehicle enters the entrance lane, in response to the determining unit determining that the entrance lane is congested.”
Hashimoto teaches: “wherein the processor is further configured to limit a moving speed of the vehicle or perform control to increase a steering angle of the vehicle when the vehicle enters the entrance lane, in response to the determining unit determining that the entrance lane is congested” [Hashimoto; "The trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory based on information concerning the travel lane which is inputted from the travel lane determination section 133. When keeping the present own vehicle travel lane is selected by the travel lane determination section 133, the trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory along the present own vehicle travel lane. When changing the own vehicle travel lane to the adjacent lane is selected by the travel lane determination section 133, the trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory in which the own vehicle is moved to the adjacent lane from the present own vehicle travel lane. Concerning each of lane keeping and lane change, the method for trajectory calculation is not limited. The control section 140 calculates an operation amount of the actuator 8 of at least one of the drive system, the braking system and the steering system based on the target trajectory calculated in the trajectory calculation section 141. The control section 140 operates the actuator 8 in accordance with the calculated operation amount, and thereby controls travel of the own vehicle;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 9, Oyama does not specifically state: “further comprising a navigation configured to set a driving path of the vehicle, wherein the navigation is further configured to set a detour path to a side lane that is not congested, in response to determining that a current side lane is congested, and wherein the processor is further configured to control driving of the vehicle based on the detour path.”
Hashimoto teaches: “further comprising a navigation configured to set a driving path of the vehicle, wherein the navigation is further configured to set a detour path to a side lane that is not congested, in response to determining that a current side lane is congested, and wherein the processor is further configured to control driving of the vehicle based on the detour path” [Hashimoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hashimoto discloses a method for determining which of a current lane (L2 in Fig. 11, for example) and a plurality of adjacent lanes (L1 and L3 in Fig. 11, for example) the vehicle should be controlled to travel along based on comparisons of the vehicle densities in the respective lanes with a threshold density. Hashimoto discloses this as follows: "When either vehicle density of the left adjacent lane and the right adjacent lane is lower than the threshold density, the lane selection section 130 subsequently performs determination in step S14. In step S14, the lane selection section 130 determines whether or not the vehicle densities in both the adjacent lanes are lower than the threshold frequency. When the determination result is negative, in step S16, the lane selection section 130 selects change of the own travel lane to a lane in which the vehicle density is lower than the threshold density;" ¶: 0092; See also: Fig. 10 & 11; ¶: 0091 and 0093-0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 10, Oyama discloses:
“A control method of a vehicle, comprising: sensing a number and speed of one or more external objects located on a side or rear of the vehicle” [Oyama; "By the way, the traffic information for the each section aggregated by the traffic information acquirer 12 is based on the traffic information acquired by the traffic information centers 2. In the each traffic information center 2, the traffic density K′ of each section is determined based on the probe information acquired from the probe vehicle, the various vehicle sensing sensors 3 installed in advance on roads, and the traffic information obtained from the prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0033];
“determining, when the vehicle enters an entrance lane, a vehicle collision index for the entrance lane by numerically calculating a possibility of collision between the vehicle and the one or more external objects based a number and speed of the one or more external objects in the entrance lane” [Oyama; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Oyama discloses calculating traffic density(patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly defined "numerically calculating a possibility of collision" for a plurality of entrance lanes entering a travel section of a road. Oyama further discloses: "Therefore, in the present embodiment, vehicles entering the section A for which a congestion indication is detected, and the traffic density K′ is corrected with the number C of these vehicles passing through the section A to detect an actual traffic density (real traffic density) K;" ¶: 0038; See also: Fig. 4; ¶: 0031-0035];
“determining that the entrance lane is congested when the vehicle collision index is greater than or equal to a preset value” [Oyama; "Thereafter, the processing proceeds to step S6 to compare the actual traffic density K to a threshold value for determining a congestion indication (indication determination threshold value) Ko for each traveling lane, and check whether there is a traveling lane exhibiting a congestion indication. In one embodiment, the processing in step S6 may serve as a “congestion indication determining unit”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0043;
"In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045; See also: Fig. 5 & 6; ¶: 0031-0035];
“determining a traffic condition of a side lane next to the entrance lane based on the number and speed of the one or more external objects” [Oyama; "In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045];
“controlling driving of the vehicle to continue traveling on the entrance lane or enter the side lane based on a result of the determining of whether the entrance lane is congested” [Oyama; "In a case of K≤Ko, it is determined that there is no congestion indication, and the processing exits the routine. On the other hand, in a case of K>Ko, it is determined that there is a congestion indication, and the processing proceeds to step S7. In step S7, the traveling lane having the lowest actual traffic density K is detected on a roadway in the section, and the processing proceeds to step S8. In one embodiment, the processing in step S7 may serve as a “low-density traveling lane detector”;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0045].
Oyama does not specifically state:
“and setting, when the vehicle collision index is determined based on information of the one or more external objects, a weight value for the information of the one or more external objects.”
Hashimoto teaches: “and setting, when the vehicle collision index is determined based on information of the one or more external objects, a weight value for the information of the one or more external objects” [Hashimoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hashimoto discloses calculating a vehicle density for a vehicles traveling in a particular lane (L1, Fig. 3 for example). In one disclosed example, Hashimoto discloses performing a weighted average ("taking the average value after assigning weights to the respective inter-vehicle distances;" ¶: 0056) when performing the lane density calculations(patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "vehicle collision index"); See also: ¶: 0054, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 11, Oyama does not specifically state: “wherein the number and speed of the one or more external objects is determined using a camera sensor or a radar sensor mounted on the vehicle.”
Hashimoto teaches: “wherein the number and speed of the one or more external objects is determined using a camera sensor or a radar sensor mounted on the vehicle” [Hashimoto; "In the present embodiment, recognition information obtained by the autonomous recognition sensors in the respective vehicles, and recognition information obtained by recognition devices installed on roads are collected by a server on the Internet. The server processes the collected information, and calculates a vehicle density in each lane in each road. Under the precondition like this, the mobile communication device 41 transmits information concerning the road on which the own vehicle is traveling to the server, and receives the vehicle density in each of the lanes of the road on which the own vehicle is traveling;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 12, Oyama discloses: “wherein the number and speed of the one or more external objects is performed by using an infrastructure or an another vehicle that provides traffic information of the entrance lane via wireless communication” [Oyama; "By the way, the traffic information for the each section aggregated by the traffic information acquirer 12 is based on the traffic information acquired by the traffic information centers 2. In the each traffic information center 2, the traffic density K′ of each section is determined based on the probe information acquired from the probe vehicle, the various vehicle sensing sensors 3 installed in advance on roads, and the traffic information obtained from the prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc;" Fig. 1 & 2; ¶: 0033;
Furthermore, Oyama discloses that the instructions to change lanes are sent to the respective vehicles through a cloud server, which is a form of wireless communication; Fig. 1; ¶: 0035].
With respect to claim 13, Oyama discloses:
“wherein the sensing of the number and speed of the one or more external objects comprises sensing the number and speed of the one or more external objects by using a camera sensor or a radar sensor” [Oyama; "For example, the private traffic information center collects probe information acquired from each contracted probe vehicle, and transmits the traffic information obtained based on the collected information to the cloud server 1. Furthermore, for example, the traffic information center of the public institution collects traffic information for each traveling lane in each section which is acquired from various vehicle sensing sensors (cameras, traffic counters, etc.) 3 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) serving as vehicle sensors installed in advance on roads, prefectural polices, road traffic managers, etc., and transmits the collected traffic information to the cloud server 1;" Fig. 5 & 6; ¶: 0019];
“and by using an infrastructure or an external vehicle that provides traffic information of the entrance lane via wireless communication” [Oyama; "As illustrated in FIG. 3, the probe information to be transmitted from the each probe vehicle to the traffic information center 2 includes a vehicle ID of an own vehicle, a transmission date and time, a current position (latitude, longitude), a vehicle speed, a traveling direction, etc., and a traffic information center 2 that has received this probe information acquires traffic information (crowded state, congestion information, etc.) for the each predetermined section based on this information;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0020].
With respect to claim 15, Oyama does not specifically state: “wherein the controlling of the driving of the vehicle comprises limiting a moving speed of the vehicle or performing control to increase a steering angle of the vehicle when the vehicle enters the entrance lane, in response to determining that the entrance lane is congested.”
Hashimoto teaches: “wherein the controlling of the driving of the vehicle comprises limiting a moving speed of the vehicle or performing control to increase a steering angle of the vehicle when the vehicle enters the entrance lane, in response to determining that the entrance lane is congested” [Hashimoto; "The trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory based on information concerning the travel lane which is inputted from the travel lane determination section 133. When keeping the present own vehicle travel lane is selected by the travel lane determination section 133, the trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory along the present own vehicle travel lane. When changing the own vehicle travel lane to the adjacent lane is selected by the travel lane determination section 133, the trajectory calculation section 141 calculates a target trajectory in which the own vehicle is moved to the adjacent lane from the present own vehicle travel lane. Concerning each of lane keeping and lane change, the method for trajectory calculation is not limited. The control section 140 calculates an operation amount of the actuator 8 of at least one of the drive system, the braking system and the steering system based on the target trajectory calculated in the trajectory calculation section 141. The control section 140 operates the actuator 8 in accordance with the calculated operation amount, and thereby controls travel of the own vehicle;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 18, Oyama does not specifically state: “further comprising: setting a detour route by using a navigation that sets a driving path of the vehicle, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is congested; and controlling driving of the vehicle based on the detour path.”
Hashimoto teaches: “further comprising: setting a detour route by using a navigation that sets a driving path of the vehicle, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is congested; and controlling driving of the vehicle based on the detour path” [Hashimoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Hashimoto discloses a method for determining which of a current lane (L2 in Fig. 11, for example) and a plurality of adjacent lanes (L1 and L3 in Fig. 11, for example) the vehicle should be controlled to travel along based on comparisons of the vehicle densities in the respective lanes with a threshold density. Hashimoto discloses this as follows: "When either vehicle density of the left adjacent lane and the right adjacent lane is lower than the threshold density, the lane selection section 130 subsequently performs determination in step S14. In step S14, the lane selection section 130 determines whether or not the vehicle densities in both the adjacent lanes are lower than the threshold frequency. When the determination result is negative, in step S16, the lane selection section 130 selects change of the own travel lane to a lane in which the vehicle density is lower than the threshold density;" ¶: 0092; See also: Fig. 10 & 11; ¶: 0091 and 0093-0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding calculating a weighted average of vehicle density of vehicles traveling in a plurality of adjacent lanes as taught by Hashimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to reduce the imbalance of traffic flow across a plurality of lanes. [Hashimoto; ¶: 0008].
With respect to claim 19, Oyama discloses: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 10” [Oyama; "In addition to the microcomputer described above, the cloud server 1, the locator unit 22 and the vehicle control unit 23 installed in the vehicle 101 can be implemented by circuitry including at least one semiconductor integrated circuit such as at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)), at least one application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and/or at least one field programmable gate array (FPGA). At least one processor can be configured, by reading instructions from at least one machine readable tangible medium, to perform all or a part of functions of the cloud server 1 including the communicator 11, the traffic information acquirer 12, and the traffic manager 13 (see FIG. 2), and the locator unit 22 and the vehicle control unit 23 installed in the vehicle 101. Such a medium may take many forms, including, but not limited to, any type of magnetic medium such as a hard disk, any type of optical medium such as a CD and a DVD, any type of semiconductor memory (i.e., semiconductor circuit) such as a volatile memory and a non-volatile memory. The volatile memory may include a DRAM and an SRAM, and the nonvolatile memory may include a ROM and an NVRAM;" Fig. 1; ¶: 0054].
With respect to claim 20, Oyama discloses: “wherein the processor is further configured to determine a change in congestion state of the entrance lane over a predetermined period of time before controlling driving of the vehicle to continue traveling on the entrance lane or to enter the side lane” [Oyama; "The traffic manager 13 determines a traffic density (the number of vehicles/section length) of the each section at a predetermined time interval (1 to 2 [min]) based on the traffic information aggregated by the traffic information acquirer 12 to check a section (area) exhibiting an indication that congestion is likely to occur (hereinafter referred to as “congestion indication”), and checks the tendency of the congestion indication in the section concerned for each lane. Then, the traffic information is processed in real time to sequentially update the road traffic information of a global dynamic map stored in the map database unit 14;" ¶: 0022].
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama in view of Hashimoto and Rachor (United States Patent 2018/0370527), referenced as Rachor moving forward.
With respect to claim 8, Oyama does not specifically state: “wherein the control unit is further configured to control driving of the vehicle such that the vehicle enters the side lane while increasing a moving speed of the vehicle based on the number and speed of the one or more external objects, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is not congested.”
Rachor, which is in the same field of invention of vehicle control systems, teaches: “wherein the control unit is further configured to control driving of the vehicle such that the vehicle enters the side lane while increasing a moving speed of the vehicle based on the number and speed of the one or more external objects, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is not congested” [Rachor; "As shown in FIG. 2, when the ego vehicle is approaching a vehicle ahead and in the same lane, the ego vehicle may change lanes to pass the leading vehicle. The system determines a faster and approaching vehicle in the lane adjacent the ego vehicle and may accelerate to adapt to the speed of the determined faster rearward approaching vehicle and change lanes into the adjacent lane occupied by the rearward approaching vehicle, thus traveling ahead of the rearward approaching vehicle and at generally the same speed as the rearward vehicle. This acceleration and lane change may be triggered by the driver (such as responsive to an alert or instruction from the system) or may be done autonomously by the system of the ego vehicle;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0013;
"The control may control the equipped vehicle to accelerate to generally match the determined speed of the determined rearward approaching vehicle and may control the equipped vehicle to maneuver the equipped vehicle into an adjacent lane responsive at least in part to (i) determination that another vehicle (or object) is ahead of the equipped vehicle in the same lane and traveling at a slower speed than the equipped vehicle (or is not moving in the same lane) and (ii) determination that the determined rearward approaching vehicle is in the adjacent lane. Thus, the equipped vehicle may be automatically maneuvered such as shown in FIG. 2;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding considering the current running speed of a vehicle as well as the current running speed of another vehicle approaching from the rear in an adjacent lane, when performing a lane change operation into the adjacent lane as taught by Rachor with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to control a vehicle to perform a lane change while avoiding collisions with other vehicles, both ahead of and behind the vehicle, even when there is a discrepancy in all three vehicle speeds. [Rachor; ¶: 0004].
With respect to claim 17, Oyama does not specifically state: “further comprising controlling driving of the vehicle such that the vehicle enters the side lane while increasing the speed of the vehicle based on the number and speed of the one or more external objects, as sensed in the determining of the traffic condition of the side lane, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is not congested.”
Rachor teaches: “further comprising controlling driving of the vehicle such that the vehicle enters the side lane while increasing the speed of the vehicle based on the number and speed of the one or more external objects, as sensed in the determining of the traffic condition of the side lane, in response to determining that the traffic condition of the side lane is not congested” [Rachor; "As shown in FIG. 2, when the ego vehicle is approaching a vehicle ahead and in the same lane, the ego vehicle may change lanes to pass the leading vehicle. The system determines a faster and approaching vehicle in the lane adjacent the ego vehicle and may accelerate to adapt to the speed of the determined faster rearward approaching vehicle and change lanes into the adjacent lane occupied by the rearward approaching vehicle, thus traveling ahead of the rearward approaching vehicle and at generally the same speed as the rearward vehicle. This acceleration and lane change may be triggered by the driver (such as responsive to an alert or instruction from the system) or may be done autonomously by the system of the ego vehicle;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0013;
"The control may control the equipped vehicle to accelerate to generally match the determined speed of the determined rearward approaching vehicle and may control the equipped vehicle to maneuver the equipped vehicle into an adjacent lane responsive at least in part to (i) determination that another vehicle (or object) is ahead of the equipped vehicle in the same lane and traveling at a slower speed than the equipped vehicle (or is not moving in the same lane) and (ii) determination that the determined rearward approaching vehicle is in the adjacent lane. Thus, the equipped vehicle may be automatically maneuvered such as shown in FIG. 2;" Fig. 2; ¶: 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system and method for managing traffic as disclosed by Oyama to incorporate the teachings regarding considering the current running speed of a vehicle as well as the current running speed of another vehicle approaching from the rear in an adjacent lane, when performing a lane change operation into the adjacent lane as taught by Rachor with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a control system and/or method for controlling the flow of traffic that is more robust in its ability to control a vehicle to perform a lane change while avoiding collisions with other vehicles, both ahead of and behind the vehicle, even when there is a discrepancy in all three vehicle speeds. [Rachor; ¶: 0004].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
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 RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666