DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-14, and 17 are pending in this application.Claims 1 and 14 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4, 9-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 20170132930 A1) in view of Graham (US 20190130753 A1) in view of Deng (CN 107221195 A) (the combination of which will be referenced as “combination Ando” hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches a system for:
electronic control system of a vehicle, the system comprising: (Ando: ¶ 036; driving assistance system 1 includes a driving assistance apparatus 10, an orientation sensor 20, a vehicle speed sensor) data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the date processing hardware to perform operations comprising: (Ando: ¶ 039; controller 13, which may be also referred to as an electronic control unit or circuit, is provided as a computer including a CPU, ROM, and RAM. The CPU performs a process in FIG. 3 by executing a program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium such as the ROM while using a temporary storage function of the RAM) . . . receiving . . . information from a roadside unit; (Ando: ¶ 159; performs the map matching by acquiring the road map information near the subject vehicle) (Ando: ¶ 038; roadside apparatus installed at the roadside) confirming the existence of the intersection using the roadside information and when the existence of the intersection is confirmed, outputting (Ando: ¶ 062; controller 13 performs an intersection node determination process. FIG. 5 illustrates this process specifically. The process at Sill corresponds to a determination section or an intersection determiner. At S111, the controller 13 determines whether determination area B contains intersection node A in the road map information.) a road status signal (Ando: ¶ 073; in FIG. 7, the neighboring vehicle 3 travels a road 8 that does not intersect with the road 4 while the neighboring vehicle 3 travels near the road 4 the subject vehicle 2 travels. In this case, determination area B often does not contain intersection node A. The driving assistance is unnecessary and is disabled.) (Ando: ¶ 063; allows the display apparatus 60 to display a possibility of collision with the neighboring vehicle 3 and allows the speaker 70 to generate a sound that notifies the existence of the neighboring vehicle) (Ando: ¶ 062; controller 13 determines whether determination area B contains intersection node A in the road map information) to at least one of a vehicle user interface or an autonomous vehicle controller supported by the vehicle (Ando: ¶ 063; allows the display apparatus 60 to display a possibility of collision with the neighboring vehicle 3 and allows the speaker 70 to generate a sound that notifies the existence of the neighboring vehicle) the road status signal (Ando: ¶ 073; determination area B often does not contain intersection node A. The driving assistance is unnecessary and is disabled.) causing the vehicle user interface to display a message to a driver or causing the autonomous vehicle controller to adjust a vehicle behavior (Ando: ¶ 063; allows the display apparatus 60 to display a possibility of collision with the neighboring vehicle 3 and allows the speaker 70 to generate a sound that notifies the existence of the neighboring vehicle) based on the type of road condition, wherein, when the roadside information received from the roadside unit indicates that the type of road condition is a curved roadway, rather than an intersection, the data processing hardware does not output the road status signal. (Ando: ¶ 073; in FIG. 7, the neighboring vehicle 3 travels a road 8 that does not intersect with the road 4 while the neighboring vehicle 3 travels near the road 4 the subject vehicle 2 travels. In this case, determination area B often does not contain intersection node A. The driving assistance is unnecessary and is disabled.) (Ando: Fig. 007; [showing a curved roadway])
To the extent Ando is silent or does not teach:
receiving roadside information; Graham does teach:
receiving roadside information (Graham: ¶ 018; intersection 205 may include roadside equipment 230 with a DSRC radio 231 that broadcasts safety messages. The safety messages may include map data containing information about the layout of the intersection 205. For example, the map data may contain position data (map coordinates) associated with the lanes of the intersection 205, including the nearest lane 215 and the adjacent lane 216.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Graham because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Graham's base METHODS are similar collision warning systems; however, Graham's METHOD has been improved by explicitly teaching a map download from roadside equipment such that the vehicle can better judge vehicles in the nearest lanes (Graham: ¶ 005). Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Graham's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
To the extent Ando is silent or does not teach:
receiving a vehicle-to-X message from another vehicle; determining an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on the vehicle-to-X message; and when the type of road condition is an intersection, outputting a road status signal; however, Deng does teach:
receiving a vehicle-to-X message from another vehicle; (Deng: ¶ 129; short range wireless communication module 1 receives from the object vehicle 7 around the running information sent by the vehicle (including the position, heading and speed information), and sends the information to the control unit module) (Deng: ¶ 013) transferring the vehicle information in the lane level map,) determining an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on the vehicle-to-X message; (Deng: ¶ 068; judging whether the vehicle and target vehicle collision possibility on the two-dimensional map, collision danger exists, judging whether the three-dimensional space link ID is crossed, not crossed, not alarming, greatly reduce misinformation, and solving the problem that the misinformation problem based on two-dimensional space judging vehicle collision..) (Deng: ¶¶ 021-022; when finding the entry cross section and a collision risk of the subject vehicle on a two-dimensional map according to the current vehicle road ID number and the object vehicle road ID number, judging whether the three-dimensional space, whether the object vehicle paths intersect; crossed, an alarm [is triggered]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Deng because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Deng's base methods are similar collision mitigation methods; however, Deng's base method has been improved by considering input from V2V communications in addition to roadside equipment. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Deng's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would improving judging accuracy (Deng: ¶ 068)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Graham further teaches:
wherein the roadside information is received at a wireless communication device supported by the vehicle and in communication with the data processing hardware. (Graham: ¶ 018; intersection 205 may include roadside equipment 230 with a DSRC radio 231 that broadcasts safety messages. The safety messages may include map data containing information about the layout of the intersection 205. For example, the map data may contain position data (map coordinates) associated with the lanes of the intersection 205, including the nearest lane 215 and the adjacent lane 216.)
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Graham further teaches:
wherein the roadside information includes at least one of Roadside Alert information or information describing a geometry of a roadway the vehicle is driving on. (Graham: ¶ 018; intersection 205 may include roadside equipment 230 with a DSRC radio 231 that broadcasts safety messages. The safety messages may include map data containing information about the layout of the intersection 205. For example, the map data may contain position data (map coordinates) associated with the lanes of the intersection 205, including the nearest lane 215 and the adjacent lane 216.)
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Graham further teaches:
wherein the roadside information comprises a MAP message or a SPaT message. (Graham: ¶ 018; intersection 205 may include roadside equipment 230 with a DSRC radio 231 that broadcasts safety messages. The safety messages may include map data containing information about the layout of the intersection 205. For example, the map data may contain position data (map coordinates) associated with the lanes of the intersection 205, including the nearest lane 215 and the adjacent lane 216.)
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data processing hardware outputs at least part of the determined type of road condition to a path prediction module of the vehicle; however, Deng does teach:
wherein the data processing hardware outputs at least part of the determined type of road condition to a path prediction module of the vehicle. (Deng: ¶ 012; invention claims a vehicle traffic prediction method, the high frequency and mapping two-dimensional map by the vehicle history track point link ID, so as to accurately judge the current vehicle road ID number, the future travel path prediction accuracy.)
Regarding claim 14, Ando teaches a method of:
of controlling an electronic control system of a vehicle, (Ando: ¶ 036; driving assistance system 1 includes a driving assistance apparatus 10, an orientation sensor 20, a vehicle speed sensor) the method comprising: . . . receiving, at data processing hardware, (Ando: ¶ 159; performs the map matching by acquiring the road map information near the subject vehicle) . . . information (Ando: ¶ 159; performs the map matching by acquiring the road map information near the subject vehicle) (Ando: ¶ 038; roadside apparatus installed at the roadside) from a roadside unit; (Ando: ¶ 038; roadside apparatus installed at the roadside) confirming, at the data processing hardware, the existence of the intersection using the roadside information; and when the existence of the intersection is confirmed, outputting (Ando: ¶ 062; controller 13 performs an intersection node determination process. FIG. 5 illustrates this process specifically. The process at Sill corresponds to a determination section or an intersection determiner. At S111, the controller 13 determines whether determination area B contains intersection node A in the road map information.), by the data processing hardware, (Ando: ¶ 039; controller 13, which may be also referred to as an electronic control unit or circuit, is provided as a computer including a CPU, ROM, and RAM. The CPU performs a process in FIG. 3 by executing a program stored in a non-transitory tangible storage medium such as the ROM while using a temporary storage function of the RAM) a road status signal (Ando: ¶ 073; in FIG. 7, the neighboring vehicle 3 travels a road 8 that does not intersect with the road 4 while the neighboring vehicle 3 travels near the road 4 the subject vehicle 2 travels. In this case, determination area B often does not contain intersection node A. The driving assistance is unnecessary and is disabled.) to at least one of a vehicle user interface or an autonomous vehicle controller supported by the vehicle based on the determined type of road condition, the road status signal causing the vehicle user interface to display a warning message to a driver or causing the autonomous vehicle controller to adjust a vehicle behavior based on the type of road condition, wherein, (Ando: ¶ 063; allows the display apparatus 60 to display a possibility of collision with the neighboring vehicle 3 and allows the speaker 70 to generate a sound that notifies the existence of the neighboring vehicle) when the roadside information received from the roadside unit indicates that the type of road condition is a curved roadway, rather than an intersection, the data processing hardware does not output the road status signal. (Ando: ¶ 073; in FIG. 7, the neighboring vehicle 3 travels a road 8 that does not intersect with the road 4 while the neighboring vehicle 3 travels near the road 4 the subject vehicle 2 travels. In this case, determination area B often does not contain intersection node A. The driving assistance is unnecessary and is disabled.) (Ando: Fig. 007; [showing a curved roadway])
To the extent Ando is silent or does not teach:
receiving roadside information; Graham does teach:
receiving roadside information (Graham: ¶ 018; intersection 205 may include roadside equipment 230 with a DSRC radio 231 that broadcasts safety messages. The safety messages may include map data containing information about the layout of the intersection 205. For example, the map data may contain position data (map coordinates) associated with the lanes of the intersection 205, including the nearest lane 215 and the adjacent lane 216.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Graham because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Graham's base METHODS are similar collision warning systems; however, Graham's METHOD has been improved by explicitly teaching a map download from roadside equipment such that the vehicle can better judge vehicles in the nearest lanes (Graham: ¶ 005). Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Graham's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
To the extent Ando is silent or does not teach:
receiving, at data processing hardware, a vehicle-to-X message from another vehicle; determining, at the data processing hardware, an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on the vehicle-to-X message; however, Deng does teach:
receiving, at data processing hardware, a vehicle-to-X message from another vehicle; (Deng: ¶ 013; transferring the vehicle information in the lane level map,)determining, at the data processing hardware, an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on the vehicle-to-X message; (Deng: ¶ 068; judging whether the vehicle and target vehicle collision possibility on the two-dimensional map, collision danger exists, judging whether the three-dimensional space link ID is crossed, not crossed, not alarming, greatly reduce misinformation, and solving the problem that the misinformation problem based on two-dimensional space judging vehicle collision.) (Deng: ¶¶ 021-022; when finding the entry cross section and a collision risk of the subject vehicle on a two-dimensional map according to the current vehicle road ID number and the object vehicle road ID number, judging whether the three-dimensional space, whether the object vehicle paths intersect; crossed, an alarm [is triggered])
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Deng because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Deng's base methods are similar collision mitigation methods; however, Deng's base method has been improved by considering input from V2V communications in addition to roadside equipment. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Deng's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would improving judging accuracy (Deng: ¶ 068)
Claims 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando as applied to claims 1 and 14 respectively above, and in further view of Nishiwaki et al. (US 20220034991 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a target vehicle position of a target vehicle and a target vehicle dynamics information of the target vehicle; determining a first predicted route based on a vehicle position and vehicle dynamics information of the vehicle; determining a second predicted route based on the received target vehicle position and the target vehicle dynamics information; determining a potential hazardous situation based on the first predicted route and the second predicted route; and outputting the road status signal including signal data, the signal data includes the potential hazardous situation and the determined type of road condition; however, Nishiwaki does teach:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a target vehicle position of a target vehicle and a target vehicle dynamics information of the target vehicle; (Nishiwaki: ¶ 034; communication means 22 of the vehicle 20 receives the position, the speed, and the orientation of the vehicle 10 from the vehicle 10 (step S1 in FIG. 4). The distance between the vehicle 10 and the vehicle 20 is calculated by the control device 24 shown in FIG. 1 from the position of the vehicle 10 and the position of the vehicle 20 (step S2).) determining a first predicted route based on a vehicle position and vehicle dynamics information of the vehicle; determining a second predicted route based on the received target vehicle position and the target vehicle dynamics information; (Nishiwaki: ¶ 036; If the distance between the vehicle 10 and the vehicle 20 is shorter than the preset distance, determination is made as to whether a line X obtained by extending a center line of the vehicle 10 in the traveling direction intersects a line Y obtained by extending a center line of the vehicle 20 in the traveling direction as shown in FIG. 3) (Nishiwaki: Fig. 003; [showing predicting trajectory of vehicles 10 and 20]) determining a potential hazardous situation based on the first predicted route and the second predicted route; and outputting the road status signal including signal data, the signal data includes the potential hazardous situation and the determined type of road condition. (Nishiwaki: ¶ 038; If the line X obtained by extending the center line of the vehicle 10 in the traveling direction intersects the line Y obtained by extending the center line of the vehicle 20 in the traveling direction, the coordinates of an intersection point P are obtained (step S5), and the distance L.sub.1 from the vehicle 10 to the intersection point P and the distance L.sub.2 from the vehicle 20 to the intersection point P are obtained (step S6). By dividing L.sub.1 by the speed of the vehicle 10 and dividing L.sub.2 by the speed of the vehicle 20, times T.sub.1 and T.sub.2 that the respective vehicles take to reach the intersection point P are obtained (step S7). If the difference between T.sub.1 and T.sub.2 is within a determination time T.sub.th, it is determined that there is the possibility of a collision (step S8), and a warning or the like is generated.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Deng because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Nishiwaki’s base methods are similar collision mitigation methods; however, Nishiwaki’s base method has been improved by considering collision risk from direct V2V communication of path intent. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Nishiwaki’s known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce unnecessary vehicle communication (Nishiwaki: ¶ 012)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Ando in view of Nishiwaki teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Ando further teaches:
further comprising: a position determination device determining the vehicle position of the vehicle; (Ando: ¶ 007; acquire a position determined by receiving a navigation signal transmitted from a navigation satellite included in a satellite navigation system and successively determine a current position of the vehicle) and a vehicle dynamics determination device determining the vehicle dynamics information of the vehicle. (Ando: ¶ 050; current position includes an absolute orientation, a vehicle speed, and a yaw rate of the subject vehicle 2. The absolute orientation, the vehicle speed, and the yaw rate are acquired from the orientation sensor 20, the vehicle speed sensor 30, and the yaw rate sensor 40, respectively.)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. Combination Ando does not explicitly teach:
further comprising: receiving a target vehicle position of a target vehicle and a target vehicle dynamics information of the target vehicle; determining a first predicted route based on a vehicle position and vehicle dynamics information of the vehicle; determining a second predicted route based on the received target vehicle position and the target vehicle dynamics information; determining a potential hazardous situation based on the first predicted route and the second predicted route; and outputting the road status signal including signal data, the signal data includes the potential hazardous situation and the determined type of road condition; however, Nishiwaki does teach:
further comprising: receiving a target vehicle position of a target vehicle and a target vehicle dynamics information of the target vehicle; (Nishiwaki: ¶ 034; communication means 22 of the vehicle 20 receives the position, the speed, and the orientation of the vehicle 10 from the vehicle 10 (step S1 in FIG. 4). The distance between the vehicle 10 and the vehicle 20 is calculated by the control device 24 shown in FIG. 1 from the position of the vehicle 10 and the position of the vehicle 20 (step S2).) determining a first predicted route based on a vehicle position and vehicle dynamics information of the vehicle; determining a second predicted route based on the received target vehicle position and the target vehicle dynamics information; (Nishiwaki: ¶ 036; If the distance between the vehicle 10 and the vehicle 20 is shorter than the preset distance, determination is made as to whether a line X obtained by extending a center line of the vehicle 10 in the traveling direction intersects a line Y obtained by extending a center line of the vehicle 20 in the traveling direction as shown in FIG. 3) (Nishiwaki: Fig. 003; [showing predicting trajectory of vehicles 10 and 20]) determining a potential hazardous situation based on the first predicted route and the second predicted route; and outputting the road status signal including signal data, the signal data includes the potential hazardous situation and the determined type of road condition. (Nishiwaki: ¶ 038; If the line X obtained by extending the center line of the vehicle 10 in the traveling direction intersects the line Y obtained by extending the center line of the vehicle 20 in the traveling direction, the coordinates of an intersection point P are obtained (step S5), and the distance L.sub.1 from the vehicle 10 to the intersection point P and the distance L.sub.2 from the vehicle 20 to the intersection point P are obtained (step S6). By dividing L.sub.1 by the speed of the vehicle 10 and dividing L.sub.2 by the speed of the vehicle 20, times T.sub.1 and T.sub.2 that the respective vehicles take to reach the intersection point P are obtained (step S7). If the difference between T.sub.1 and T.sub.2 is within a determination time T.sub.th, it is determined that there is the possibility of a collision (step S8), and a warning or the like is generated.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Deng because the use of a known technique to improve similar base methods in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Nishiwaki’s base methods are similar collision mitigation methods; however, Nishiwaki’s base method has been improved by considering collision risk from direct V2V communication of path intent. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Nishiwaki’s known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would reduce unnecessary vehicle communication (Nishiwaki: ¶ 012)
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Ando as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (US 20200282981 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data processing hardware provides at least part of the determined type of road condition to at least one of further driver assistance applications or autonomous driving applications; however, Wang does teach:
wherein the data processing hardware provides at least part of the determined type of road condition to at least one of further driver assistance applications or autonomous driving applications. (Wang: ¶ 090; In some embodiments, the warning data 188 is operable to modify an operation of the ADAS system 180 or the autonomous driving system 181 so that these components of the ego vehicle 123: (1) do not steer the ego vehicle 123 into the target lane; or (2) do not steer the ego vehicle 123 into the target lane at the target time.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Wang because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Wang's base systems are similar automotive collision avoidance systems; however, Wang's base system has been improved by sharing the heightened possibility of a collisions with onboard autonomous driving applications. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Wang's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would increase the speed of a response to a potentially dangerous situation and increase driver safety.
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Ando teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Ando does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data processing hardware outputs at least part of the determined type of road condition to at least one of the following driver assistance applications: Electronic Emergency Brake Light (EEBL), Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Stationary Vehicle Warning (SVW), or Control Loss Warning (CLW); however, Wang does teach:
wherein the data processing hardware outputs at least part of the determined type of road condition to at least one of the following driver assistance applications: Electronic Emergency Brake Light (EEBL), Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Stationary Vehicle Warning (SVW), or Control Loss Warning (CLW). (Wang: ¶ 090; In some embodiments, the warning data 188 is operable to modify an operation of the ADAS system 180 or the autonomous driving system 181 so that these components of the ego vehicle 123: (1) do not steer the ego vehicle 123 into the target lane; or (2) do not steer the ego vehicle 123 into the target lane at the target time.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ando with the teachings of Wang because the use of a known technique to improve similar systems in the same way is obvious (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.) In the instant case, both Ando and Wang's base systems are similar automotive collision avoidance systems; however, Wang's base system has been improved by sharing the heightened possibility of a collisions with onboard vehicle safety systems that may be able to respond to the threat. Before the time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied Wang's known improvement to Ando using known methods and recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Further, such a combination would predictably create an expectation of advantage because doing so would increase the speed of a response to a potentially dangerous situation and increase driver safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that
Deng describes an automobile lane prediction method and a lane level map, which can judge the level of a current driving road section of a vehicle by using historical track data and lane level map data. Deng does not use any of this information to confirm whether an intersection exists. (Applicant’s Arguments filed September 23, 2025, pg. 8).
Applicant’s specification describes the claimed limitation of “determining an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on the vehicle-to- X message” as
receiving, at the processor 222, a vehicle-to-X message 112 from another vehicle110. The method 400 also includes determining an existence of an intersection along the vehicle route based on the vehicle- to-X message 112. In other words, the processor 222 determines if the vehicle-to-X message 112 indicates that the other vehicle 110 is within an intersection. When the processor 222 determines that an intersection exists, then the processor 222 instructs the signal interface 230 to output a road status signal 232. When the processor 222 determines that the type of road condition is not an intersection, then the processor 222 does not instruct the signal interface 230 to output a road status signal 232. (Applicant’s Specification, ¶ 033 (emphasis added)).
In other words, the process of determining an intersection is achieved by determining if the sending-message vehicle is within the under-consideration intersection. Deng teaches exactly this by evaluating if potentially crossing-vehicle is truly at the intersection or is at fly-over bridge at the intersection at Deng: ¶ 068 (judging whether the three-dimensional space link ID is crossed, not crossed (emphasis added)). At paragraph 68, Deng is teaching using the received v2x messaging to detect if a true intersection exists at the own-vehicle and the message-sending possible collision point. If the messaging-sending vehicle can reliably be predicted to be at an different elevation that the own-vehicle – the intersection is predicted not to exist because the roadways are predicted not to be true intersection but merely to overfly or under-cross each other.
Applicant further argues along the same line of thought that:
Putting this all together, none of these references teaches or suggests (1) determining an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on vehicle-to-X messages; and then (2) confirming the existence of the intersection using roadside information. In fact, the closest they come is to assume that an intersection exists (e.g., with the map data of Ando). Even if Ando (or any of the other references) were seen to teach that an intersection existence determination were somehow made, none of the references teaches or suggests that this determination is confirmed by roadside information. (Applicant’s Arguments filed September 23, 2025, pg. 8).
As acknowledge by Applicant, Deng does teach ¶ 067 that “the lane-level map stored on the vehicle or on the cloud server” Deng uses the lane level map as part of the risk of intersection calculation that occurs at ¶ 068 (can distinguish each road on a two-dimensional map of three-dimensional space hierarchy a unique link ID number), thus Deng does use both roadside (as-built road intersection information determined by the three-dimensional space hierarchy a unique link ID number) and vehicle information (sending-vehicle location and direction information used to find the potential crossing point). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested the limitation of “(1) determining an existence of an intersection along a vehicle route based on vehicle-to-X messages; and then (2) confirming the existence of the intersection using roadside information” (Applicant’s Arguments filed September 23, 2025, pg. 8) and the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Kumar et al. (US 10816345 B2) which discloses a Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) system that enhances navigation in conjunction with available advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) through the use of V2X capable entities along a routes.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663