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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Particularly, WO 2020194017 A1 (hereinafter D1) has been cited in the IDS, but a complete copy has not been provided. Instead, there appears to be a document uploaded 8/11/2025 which combines WO 2017126012 A1 (hereinafter D2) and D1 wherein the document includes the following in order: a translated abstract of D2, a translated description of D1, a translated claim-set of D1, and an original language copy of D2. Examiner respectfully requests applicant to resubmit D1 containing only material pertaining to D1 including at least an original copy of D1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1 and 10, the “external environment recognizing unit” in the limitation “an external environment recognizing unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data around the moving body from an external environment sensor and recognizes a surrounding situation of the moving body based on the external environment recognition data” invokes 112(f) as “external environment recognizing unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the acquisition and recognition of surrounding environment data.
In claims 1 and 10, the “prediction unit” in the limitation “a prediction unit configured to, based on the surrounding situation, performs prediction regarding rush-out of a moving obstacle to a first lane in which the moving body is positioned” invokes 112(f) as “prediction unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the prediction of whether an obstacle will rush out into oncoming traffic.
In claims 4 and 5, the “detection unit” in the limitation “a detection unit configured to detect rush-out of the moving obstacle from the second lane to the first lane based on the behavior of the moving obstacle” invokes 112(f) as “detection unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the detection of an obstacle moving from one lane to another.
In claims 4 and 5, the “control unit” in the limitation “a control unit configured to perform movement control of the moving body according to rush-out of the moving obstacle” invokes 112(f) as “control unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the controlling of a vehicle to avoid a collision with an obstacle.
In claims 4 and 5, the “warning unit” in the limitation “a warning unit configured to provide a warning according to rush-out of the moving obstacle, the warning unit provides a warning to a user of the moving body when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle” invokes 112(f) as “warning unit” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables a driver to be alerted about a potential collision with an obstacle.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification (paragraph 0068) shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure to these claim limitations:
“The control device 20 includes, as functional units thereof, an external environment recognizing unit 31, a travel control unit 32, a rush-out prediction unit 33 (an example of the prediction unit), a rush-out detection unit 34 (an example of the detection unit), a display control unit 35 (an example of the warning unit), a light emission control unit36 (an example of the warning unit), a sound output control unit 37 (an example of the warning unit), and a communication control unit 38 (an example of the warning unit). At least some of the functional units of the control device 20 are implemented as a process executed by one or more processors according to a predetermined control program (an example of the control program for the moving body) as software. Also, at least some of the functional units of the control device 20 may be implemented as hardware such as an LSI, an ASIC, an FPGA, etc. or may be implemented as a combination of software and hardware.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri et al. EP 3950451 A1 (hereinafter Nanri) in view of Goyal US 20210382489 A1 (hereinafter Goyal), Ikoma et al. US 20230410459 A1 (hereinafter Ikoma), Katoh et al. US 2024/0249523 A1 (hereinafter Katoh), Nilsson et al. US 20160327953 A1 (hereinafter Nilsson), and Kubota et al. US 20050109556 A1 (hereinafter Kubota).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Nanri teaches a control method for a moving body (Abstract discloses a control method for a moving vehicle), in which one or more processors execute the method (paragraph 0026 details performing the method with a processor) a control device (paragraph 0024 discloses an electronic control unit) for a moving body that performs the method, comprising:
an external environment recognizing unit configured to acquire external environment recognition data around the moving body from an external environment sensor and recognizes a surrounding situation of the moving body based on the external environment recognition data (Figure 3 11, 12, and 13 discloses various sensors used to acquire information regarding various aspects of the environment; paragraphs 0013-0016 provide more information regarding these sensors and how they recognize the surroundings);
a prediction unit configured to, based on the surrounding situation, performs prediction regarding rush-out of a moving obstacle to a first lane in which the moving body is positioned (Abstract discloses predicting if a mobile unit is likely to enter a first lane wherein a host vehicle is traveling),
the prediction unit acquiring, as the prediction regarding rush-out of the moving obstacle, a score indicating the possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraphs 0104-0106 disclose determining the probability of rush-out from an intersection; the disclosure implies a quantified score with the utilization of "low" and "high" terms regarding the probability),
wherein the external environment recognizing unit recognizes, as the surrounding situation, a behavior of a group of opposite-direction moving bodies comprising multiple other moving bodies moving in a second lane adjacent to the first lane in a direction opposite to a moving direction of the moving body (Figure 2 shows a plurality of moving bodies in an opposite direction moving lane from the host vehicle 1; Abstract discloses observing the deceleration of opposite moving bodies which is a type of behavior), the group of opposite-direction moving bodies including a first another moving body which is positioned ahead of a reference position corresponding to the moving body in the opposite direction (Figure 2 shows multiple moving bodies including a leading vehicle 4b obscuring the line of sight to the obstacle 8a) and has a speed greater than zero (paragraph 0030 discloses that vehicle 4b is traveling, i.e. has a velocity greater than zero at least some of the time, in the opposite traveling direction), and a second another moving body which is moving behind the first another moving body in the opposite direction (Figure 2 shows multiple moving bodies including a following vehicle 4a in the same lane as the leading vehicle 4b),
the prediction unit predicts a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle based on a behavior of the second another moving body (Abstract discloses predicting if a mobile unit is likely to enter a first lane based on if a preceding vehicle is decelerating or stopped), wherein the prediction unit determines that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle when the behavior of the second another moving body includes a deceleration of the second another moving body greater than a deceleration of the first another moving body (Abstract discloses predicting if a mobile unit is likely to enter a first lane based on if the preceding vehicle is decelerating or stopped; it is inherent that the vehicle in front would be accelerating or have a deceleration of zero due to having no apparent reason to decelerate in the provided embodiment; since the vehicle preceding the front vehicle is decelerating, its deceleration is greater than that of the leading vehicle).
PNG
media_image1.png
886
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nanri does not teach that the score is based on a learned learning model which is obtained by carrying out machine learning for estimating the possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle.
Goyal teaches a score indicating the possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0052 discloses scoring a likelihood that a pedestrian will jaywalk) based on a learned learning model (paragraph 0053 teaches a machine learning model) which is obtained by carrying out machine learning for estimating the possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0053 teaches training the machine learning model).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Goyal with a reasonable expectation of success to optimize the efficiency of the prediction.
The modified Nanri reference doesn’t teach the external environment recognizing unit recognizing a behavior of the moving obstacle, a control unit configured to perform movement control of the moving body according to rush-out of the moving obstacle, the control unit executes first movement control comprising emergency steering to avoid collision with the moving obstacle by estimating a direction in which the moving obstacle is not present and automatically operating a steering device in that direction, when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle.
Katoh teaches the external environment recognizing unit recognizing a behavior of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses monitoring other vehicles in the environment and watching if a trajectory, a type of behavior, of one car enters a blind spot),
a control unit configured to perform movement control of the moving body according to rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses providing a control which moves the vehicle when a risk of collision is predicted),
the control unit executes first movement control comprising emergency steering to avoid collision with the moving obstacle by estimating a direction in which the moving obstacle is not present and automatically operating a steering device in that direction, when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses providing a control which moves the vehicle when a risk of collision is detected; paragraph 0030 discloses that the control may be steering control; examiner considers it inherent that avoiding a potential collision with steering would require estimating and steering where the obstacle is not present as steering towards an obstacle will cause a collision).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Katoh with a reasonable expectation of success to increase safety by reducing risks associated with moving obstacles entering blind spots.
The modified Nanri reference does not teach a detection unit configured to detect rush-out of the moving obstacle from the second lane to the first lane based on the behavior of the moving obstacle; and the control unit further executes second movement control comprising emergency steering to avoid collision with the moving obstacle that has rushed out to a position in front of the moving body.
Ikoma teaches a detection unit configured to detect rush-out of the moving obstacle from the second lane to the first lane based on the behavior of the moving obstacle (Abstract discloses a detection unit that monitors a blind spot and detects if a vehicle is rushing out and thus likely to cause a collision); and the control unit further executes second movement control comprising emergency steering to avoid collision with the moving obstacle that has rushed out to a position in front of the moving body when rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit. (paragraph 0027 discloses once a vehicle is detected rushing out, avoidance operation such as steering needs to be performed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Ikoma with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety by monitoring and detecting rush out at blind spots and quickly reacting to detection.
The modified Nanri reference does not teach executing the second movement control, when, after execution of the first movement control, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit.
Nilsson teaches that the control unit executes first movement control when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0074, for example, discloses determining a safe trajectory for the vehicle based on a predicted risk of child rush out; paragraph 0074 also provides an example of changing lateral position and reducing velocity according to this prediction), and executes the second movement control, when, after execution of the first movement control, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit (paragraph 0074, for example, discloses performing obstacle avoidance once a hypothetical child rush out is confirmed, i.e. detected, to be real).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Nilsson such that the detection based control of Ikoma can be performed subsequent to the prediction based controls of Katoh such that preparatory collision avoidance measures can be performed based on prediction of rush out, and more extreme collision avoidance measures can be performed upon detection of rush out as taught by Nilsson. This modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator comfort by adjusting a trajectory such that a smooth and comfortable obstacle avoidance can be performed as disclosed in Nilsson (paragraph 0074).
The modified Nanri reference does not teach a steering speed of the steering device in the second movement control is greater than a steering speed in the first movement control.
Kubota teaches a steering speed of the steering device in the second movement control is greater than a steering speed in the first movement control (paragraph 0041 discloses operating at a higher steering speed than normal during an emergency scenario which examiner considers to be applicable to a scenario in which an obstacle is detected to have rushed out).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Kubota with a reasonable expectation of success to improve reaction response effect during dangerous situations.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Nanri further teaches that the moving body is a vehicle traveling in a certain lane as the first lane, and the group of opposite-direction moving bodies includes multiple other vehicles traveling in, as the second lane, an oncoming lane adjacent to the certain lane (Figure 2 shows a plurality of moving bodies in an opposite direction moving lane from the host vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 10 as detailed above. Nanri further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (paragraph 0025 provides various embodiments of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), comprising a stored program, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, executes the method of claim 10 (paragraph 0026 details executing program code stored on a storage device with a processor to perform the method).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri as modified by Goyal, Ikoma, Katoh, Nilsson, and Kubota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ploog et al EP 4024366 A1 (hereinafter Ploog).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Nanri further teaches a storage unit (paragraph 0025 provides various embodiments of non-transitory computer readable medium which is a storage unit).
Nanri does not teach storing statistical data related to a normal behavior of the second another moving body, wherein the prediction unit determines that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle when the behavior of the second another moving body recognized by the external environment recognizing unit is determined to be different from the normal behavior based on the statistical data.
Ploog teaches storing statistical data related to a normal behavior of the second another moving body (paragraph 0046 details storing the information regarding the regular movements and behaviors of traffic participants), wherein the prediction unit determines that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle when the behavior of the second another moving body recognized by the external environment recognizing unit is determined to be different from the normal behavior based on the statistical data (Abstract details determining if current movements or behaviors of traffic participants are unusual or improper and determining a reaction to the unusual behavior).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of Ploog with a reasonable expectation of success to provide driving behaviors that can be planned or adapted to regarding the behaviors of traffic participants as disclosed in paragraph 0015 of Ploog.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri as modified by Goyal, Ikoma, Katoh, Nilsson, and Kubota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of "Understanding ADAS" by CarADAS.com (hereinafter CarADAS.com).
Regarding claims 5, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 1 above.
Nanri does not teach that the external environment recognizing unit recognizes, as the surrounding situation, a behavior of the moving obstacle,
the control device further comprises:
the control unit further configured to perform movement control of the moving body according to rush-out of the moving obstacle; and
a warning unit configured to provide a warning according to rush-out of the moving obstacle, the warning unit provides a warning to a user of the moving body when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle.
Katoh further teaches that the external environment recognizing unit recognizes, as the surrounding situation, a behavior of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses monitoring other vehicles in the environment and watching if a trajectory, a type of behavior, of one car enters a blind spot),
the control device further comprises:
the control unit further configured to perform movement control of the moving body according to rush-out of the moving obstacle, and the control unit executes first movement control when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses providing a control which moves the vehicle when a risk of collision is predicted); and
a warning unit that configured to provide a warning according to rush-out of the moving obstacle, the warning unit provides a warning to a user of the moving body when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (paragraph 0031 discloses providing an alert to the driver regarding a risk of collision).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the further teachings of Katoh with a reasonable expectation of success to increase safety by reducing risks associated with moving obstacles entering blind spots.
The modified Nanri reference fails to teach the detection unit further configured to detect rush-out of the moving obstacle from the second lane to the first lane based on the behavior of the moving obstacle; and that the control unit executes second movement control when, after execution of the first movement control, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit; and that the control unit executes the movement control when, after the warning, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit.
CarADAS.com teaches the detection unit further configured to detect rush-out of the moving obstacle from the second lane to the first lane based on the behavior of the moving obstacle ("What is Pedestrian Detection in Cars?" section discloses detecting pedestrians with lidar, radar, or camera);
that the control unit executes second movement control when, after execution of the first movement control, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit ("What is Pedestrian Detection in Cars?" section discloses using automatic emergency braking after pedestrian detection); and
that the control unit executes the movement control when, after the warning, rush-out of the moving obstacle is detected by the detection unit ("What is Pedestrian Detection in Cars?" section discloses using automatic emergency braking after pedestrian detection if driver does not brake).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of CarADAS.com with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce traffic fatalities as disclosed in CarADAS.com (introductory paragraph).
Examiner notes that Ikoma teaches a detection unit as detailed above in the claim 1 rejection. For conciseness, the detection unit of CarADAS.com was chose for the claim 5 rejection. The utilization of CarADAS.com is in no way meant to indicate a deficiency of the detection unit taught by Ikoma.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri as modified by Goyal, Ikoma, Katoh, Nilsson, CarADAS.com, and Kubota as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of You et al. US 2018/0118106 A1 (hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above.
The modified Nanri reference does not teach that the warning unit provides a further warning to surroundings of the moving body when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle.
You teaches that the warning unit provides a further warning to surroundings of the moving body when it is determined by the prediction unit that there is a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle (Abstract discloses putting out a warning sounds to a pedestrian if there is a risk regarding the predicted moving route of a pedestrian).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Nanri to incorporate the teachings of You with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety for those in the surroundings of the moving body.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanri as modified by Goyal, Ikoma, Katoh, Nilsson, and Kubota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. US 20190283751 A1 (hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Nanri reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above. Nanri further teaches the prediction unit predicts a possibility of rush-out of the moving obstacle from the third lane to the first lane based on a behavior of a third another moving body (Abstract discloses predicting if a mobile unit is likely to enter a first lane based on if a preceding vehicle is decelerating or stopped).
Nanri does not teach that the external environment recognizing unit is configured to recognize, based on the external environment recognition data, a behavior of a group of same-direction moving bodies comprising multiple other moving bodies moving in a third lane adjacent to the first lane in a same direction as the moving body, and that the third another moving body is a moving body in the group of same-direction moving bodies that is positioned in the moving direction of the moving body.
Ueda teaches that the external environment recognizing unit recognizes, based on the external environment recognition data, a behavior of a group of same-direction moving bodies comprising multiple other moving bodies moving in a third lane adjacent to the first lane in a same direction as the moving body (Figure 9 discloses multiple vehicles in an adjacent lane traveling in the same direction; paragraph 0057 discloses recognizing objects in the environment and their states such as speed and acceleration which are considered by the examiner as types of behavior), and that the third another moving body is a moving body in the group of same-direction moving bodies that is positioned in the moving direction of the moving body (Figure 9 discloses multiple vehicles in an adjacent lane traveling in the same direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the algorithm of Nanri to incorporate the roadway design and situation of Ueda. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the road design of Ueda with adjacent, same direction moving lanes for the road design of Nanri with an adjacent oncoming lane. This substitution would not prohibit the method of Nanri from functioning. It would still be able to determine if a vehicle in front of and in an adjacent lane of the host vehicle is in a decelerating or stopped state and thus predict if a moving obstacle may rush into the host vehicle’s lane from a blind spot in front of the vehicle in the adjacent lane. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 11/14/2025 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 8/14/2025. These/this objection have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 applicant argues that Nanri does not teach a two stage system design and Nilsson does not teach performing steering control to avoid rush-out. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Nilsson is utilized to teach the two stage movement control; and Katoh, Ikoma, and Kubota are used to teach the specific steering based controls. All these references further including Goyal when considered in combination teach the disclosed invention.
On page 7, applicant argues that Nilsson does not teach a two staged movement control but rather only teaches avoidance actions being performed. While Nilsson does not teach the specific steering control arrangement of the invention on its own, Nilsson is more than capable of teaching a two staged movement control wherein the first stage is in response to a prediction and the second stage is in response to a detection. See paragraph 0074 cited in full below:
“For illustrating the proposed method consider the following example scenarios. If the vehicle 1 travels past a school or a school bus safe vehicle 1 trajectories will be determined through detecting unobservable areas 4 and placing virtual children 5 in these unobservable areas 4. These virtual children 5 will then be associated with the hypothetical events of walking out into the road travelled by the vehicle 1 and a high occurrence probability assigned thereto. Safe vehicle 1 trajectories are determined such that it will be possible to avoid a collision with a child using a smooth and comfortable maneuver should it later turn out that there was a child in the unobservable area 4 and that child in fact walked out into the road travelled by the vehicle 1. In practice this will mean that a safe vehicle 1 trajectory will be determined such that the vehicle 1 will be laterally placed on the road such that a child can be detected as early as possible and which means that the vehicle 1 velocity will be reduced to a level where it will be possible to perform smooth and comfortable braking should a virtual child 5 turn out to exist for real. Upon calculating which velocity and lateral placement should be used it is envisaged to take into account the capacity of the sensors 2 in terms of field-of view and detection times, as well as limitations in vehicle actuators for performing braking-acceleration- and steering maneuvers in order to model a smooth and comfortable maneuver. In practice, for the above scenario, this may mean that a safe vehicle 1 trajectory will displace the vehicle 1 e.g. 0.5 m laterally towards a center of the road, if there is no other traffic to be considered, and that.” (Emphasis added.)
This means that first, virtual children are placed in unobservable areas. This is a prediction that children can/may appear in these areas and that rush-out may occur. Second, trajectories are determined such that the vehicle can be laterally placed on the road according to these virtual children such that detection will occur as early as possible and velocity will be reduced to improve comfort if detection does occur. Third, detection occurs wherein a virtual child turns out to be real, and braking occurs to avoid collision. As detailed and rephrased for further clarity, Nilsson capably teaches performing a first stage movement control based on a prediction (providing lateral placement and velocity based on virtual children) and then performing a second stage movement control based on detection (providing a braking operation when a virtual child is real). While Nilsson may be interpreted such that the lateral positioning includes steering to be positioned in a specific lateral location, for the purpose of completeness, Katoh is used to read on steering controls during the prediction step. Ikoma is then used to teach the detection based steering controls which Nilsson lacks altogether. Nilsson is able to link together the single step steering based controls of Katoh and Ikoma wherein Katoh is prediction based and Ikoma is detection based. Finally, Kubota is utilized to detail a steering speed difference between the two steps. Therefore, the combination adequately teaches the argued limitations.
On page 8, applicant argues that Katoh and Ikoma are both detection based systems and therefore cannot be combined to make up for the steering deficiency of Nilsson. While examiner concedes that Ikoma is a detection based reaction as initially cited in the Office Action dated 8/14/2025, examiner respectfully disagrees that Katoh is also detection based. See excerpt from paragraph 0031 of Katoh below:
“Then, when it is predicted that a predicted jumping trajectory 222 on the assumption that the other vehicle 221 has jumped out of a blind spot region 220 overlaps a lane change trajectory 230 of the host vehicle 200 at the same timing, that is, when a collision between the host vehicle 200 and the other vehicle 221 is predicted, an alarm for notifying the driver of the host vehicle 200 of a risk of collision is issued by voice or the like, or control for reducing the blind spot region of the lane as the lane change destination (for example, moving toward the center of the lane, or the like) is performed.” (Emphasis added.)
It would be disingenuous to interpret “predicted” as recited above to mean “detected” as utilized in the application of record. Therefore, Katoh teaches a prediction based control.
On page 8, applicant argues that the amended claims are not taught by the prior art of record. Examiner presumes the amended limitation the applicant is arguing for is that “a first another moving body… has a speed greater than zero” as this is the only newly added limitation. All other amendments pertain to correcting claim objections or bring previously rejected claim 3 limitations into the independent claims. Nanri covers this limitation in at least paragraph 0030 as vehicle 4b is detailed as being present in a lane with a traveling direction indicating that the vehicle has, at least some of the time, a speed greater than zero else the lane would be a parking lot/space/etc. and would not possess a traveling direction. Therefore, rejection utilizing the prior art of record is maintained, and the rejection has been slightly modified to accompany the amended material.
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 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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669