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, 3-4 and 7 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 is presented as currently amended.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Dec. 22, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avedisov (US 20220114895 A1) in view of Jacobus (US 20190088148 A1) (the combination of which will be referenced as "combination Avedisov " supra) . As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Avedisov teaches a travelling control system for vehicles comprising:
a plurality of vehicles each including a controller configured to execute travelling control of an automatic driving or of a driving support in a case that the plurality of vehicles travels on a road; (Avedisov: ¶ 033; connected vehicles drive along the road [may] perform the driving maneuvers contained in the instructions to transform the initial vehicle configuration into the desired vehicle configuration.) and a server (Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may send instructions containing the driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may then perform the driving maneuvers contained in the instructions to transform the initial vehicle configuration into the desired vehicle configuration.)such that the plurality of vehicles travels based on priority following a priority rule in traffic; and determine, at the server and based on field information collected from the plurality of vehicles including travelling information and surrounding information locally sensed by each vehicle, (Avedisov: ¶ 033; connected vehicles may gather sensor data and may transmit the sensor data to the edge server 104.) priority with respect to the plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle intending to travel on the road, (Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may receive the sensor data from the vehicles and from the RSU 102 and may determine an initial vehicle configuration (e.g., current positions of connected and non-connected vehicles) based on the received data) wherein: the travelling control system is configured to send the respective travelling control information generated by the server for each of the plurality of vehicles to each of the plurality of vehicles so as to cause the controller of each of the plurality of vehicles to execute the travelling control (Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may send instructions containing the driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may then perform the driving maneuvers contained in the instructions) based on a combination (Avedisov: ¶ 058; data reception module 412 may fuse the data received from connected vehicles and from the RSU 102 into a single coordinate system) of the locally sensed surrounding information and server-generated travelling control information; (Avedisov: ¶ 059; data reception module 412 may receive raw sensor data captured by sensors 210 of a vehicle system 200 (e.g., image data) and raw sensor data captured by the sensors 308 of the RSU) (Avedisov: ¶ 098; server may transmit driving instructions comprising the determined driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may receive the driving instructions and may perform the driving maneuvers contained therein. For autonomous connected vehicles, the vehicles may perform the driving maneuvers autonomously) the travelling control system is configured to send the respective travelling control information generated by the server; for each of the plurality of vehicles (Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may send instructions containing the driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles.)
Avedisov does not explicitly teach or is silent about: such that a travelling of the first vehicle has priority over a travelling of an other vehicle, when the first vehicle has lower priority under the priority rule in traffic, compared to the other vehicle; the server is configured to receive, from the first vehicle, a request directed to the server when the first vehicle is stopped for performing traffic-jam-cutting-in and is configured to determine, at the server and based on the request, to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle.
However, Jacobus does teach: such that a travelling of the first vehicle has priority over a travelling of an other vehicle, (Jacobus ¶ 195; a hole sufficient for safe entry has to be made. This should be requested by the vehicle merging into traffic and acknowledged by cross traffic vehicles) when the first vehicle has lower priority under the priority rule in traffic, compared to the other vehicle; (Jacobus ¶ 195; behavior applies to lane changes, traffic circles, un-managed intersections where cross traffic has priority and does not have to stop, and or merging onto highways from entry ramps.) the server is configured to receive, from the first vehicle, a request directed to the server when the first vehicle is stopped for performing traffic-jam-cutting-in (Jacobus ¶ 195; a hole sufficient for safe entry has to be made. This should be requested by the vehicle merging into traffic and acknowledged by cross traffic vehicles) and is configured to determine, at the server and based on the request, to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle. (Jacobus ¶ 198; Unmanaged intersections, where one set of through traffic does not stop (has priority), is handled as indicated previously with low priority traffic stopping until the higher priority traffic either abates, or a where a traffic hole of sufficient length or time interval has been created as a consequence of V2V messaging from a low priority vehicle to proximal higher priority vehicles requesting creation of a hole in traffic flow sufficient for the lower priority vehicle to enter the higher priority traffic flow.)
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 Jacobus with the teachings of Avedisov because using a remote server to control the vehicle would result in the predicable benefit of allowing the autonomous system improve overall traffic control when it is impeded by normal traffic flow priority rules (Jacobus: ¶ 023).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Avedisov as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Masahiro (JP 2019220199 A). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Avedisov teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Avedisov further teaches:
. . . and the server is configured to generate the travelling control information for causing the first vehicle . . .(Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may send instructions containing the driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may then perform the driving maneuvers contained in the instructions)
However, Avedisov does not explicitly teach: the server is configured to determine to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, in a case that the first vehicle stops at a position, on a first road, before a second road in which a traffic jam exists, the first road extending to a place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other, the second road having higher priority, based on the priority rule in traffic, than the first road;. . . on the first road being the subordinate-side and having lower priority based on the priority rule in traffic to travel toward the place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other, prior to the other vehicle travelling toward the place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other on the second road having higher priority based on the priority rule in traffic; but Masahiro does teach:
the server is configured to determine to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, (Masahiro: ¶ 129; vehicle D behaves, for example, "permits the vehicle A to enter after the vehicle's entry point". Decide and notify car A. Further, the cars E to G determine that the car A can enter in front of the own vehicle, and determine a behavior such as "allow the car A to enter in front of the own vehicle".) in a case that the first vehicle stops at a position, on a first road, before a second road (Masahiro: Fig. 9) in which a traffic jam exists, (Masahiro: ¶ 124; Enter During Traffic Jam) the first road extending to a place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other, the second road having higher priority, based on the priority rule in traffic, than the first road; (Masahiro: Fig. 9) . . . on the first road being the subordinate-side and having lower priority based on the priority rule in traffic to travel toward the place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other, prior to the other vehicle travelling toward the place where the first road and the second road merge or connect with each other on the second road having higher priority based on the priority rule in traffic. (Masahiro: Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image1.png
594
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Masahiro with the teachings of Avedisov because doing so would lead to the predictable improvement of “reliably avoid[ing] a traffic accident” (Masahiro: ¶ 010).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Avedisov as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Horibe (JP2008262418A). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Avedisov teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Avedisov further teaches:
the server (Avedisov: ¶ 033; server 104 may send instructions containing the driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may then perform the driving maneuvers contained in the instructions to transform the initial vehicle configuration into the desired vehicle configuration.)
Avedisov does not explicitly teach: is configured to determine to give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, in a case that the first vehicle travelling on a first lane is attempting to perform a lane change to a second lane in which a traffic jam exists, on a road including the first lane and the second lane adjacent to the first lane; and the server is configured to generate the travelling control information causing the first vehicle on the first lane related to the lane change being the subordinate-side and having lower priority based on the priority rule in traffic to travel so as to cut into a space between the plurality of vehicles travelling on the second lane having higher priority based on the priority rule in traffic; however, Horibe does teach:
is configured to determine to give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, (Horibe: ¶ 165; the priority order determination unit 40a determines the priority order according to the following rules. a) A vehicle in the same lane has a higher priority in the vehicle ahead. b) In the left and right vehicles just before passing through the narrow road, the vehicle in the lane without the construction site 11 has a higher priority.) in a case that the first vehicle travelling on a first lane is attempting to perform a lane change to a second lane in which a traffic jam exists, on a road including the first lane and the second lane adjacent to the first lane; and (Horibe: ¶ 003; In FIG. 1, since there is a construction spot 110 in the right lane, a bottleneck occurs, and two lanes temporarily become one lane from the front of the construction spot) the server is configured to generate the travelling control information causing the first vehicle on the first lane related to the lane change being the subordinate-side and having lower priority based on the priority rule in traffic to travel so as to cut into a space between the plurality of vehicles travelling on the second lane having higher priority based on the priority rule in traffic. (Horibe: ¶ 087; since the vehicles are not completely parallel to each other in the left and right lanes, for example, vehicles with priority 2 can easily change lanes before vehicles with priority 3, and vehicles with priority 4 have priority. It becomes easier to change lanes in front of the vehicle of rank 5)
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 Horibe with the teachings of Avedisov because doing enables the predictable improvement of smoother merging (Horibe: ¶ 004).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Avedisov as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Kirimura (JP 2008102738 A). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Avedisov teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Avedisov does not explicitly teach:
wherein the server is configured to determine to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, in a case that following vehicles of a predetermined number or more exist behind the first vehicle, each of the following vehicles being one of the plurality of vehicles; however, Kirimura does teach:
wherein the server is configured to determine to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle on a subordinate-side, in a case that following vehicles of a predetermined number or more exist behind the first vehicle, each of the following vehicles being one of the plurality of vehicles. (Kirimura: ¶ 004; traffic control center 113 counts the number of vehicles that have entered the right turn pocket. And when the count number exceeds a certain threshold value, blue lighting or right turn auxiliary signal lighting information is transmitted to the traffic light 114n at the intersection to the traffic light controller)
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 Kirimura with the teachings of Avedisov results the predictable result of “eliminat[ing] congestion” (Kirimura: ¶ 004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed Dec. 22, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
Claim 1 recites that the server "determine[s], at the server and based on field information collected from the plurality of vehicles, priority with respect to the plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle intending to travel on the road." Jacobus does not disclose this subject matter. The cited portions of Jacobus (e.g., 1195, 198) describe vehicle-centric V2V negotiation at unmanaged intersections or during merging behavior. Priority is decided by the vehicles themselves based on situational assessment or messaging between vehicles. Nothing in Jacobus teaches or suggests that a server (centralized or distributed) determines priority among multiple vehicles using globally collected road information. . . . [C]laim 1 recites that priority determination at the server is performed using field information aggregated from all vehicles, including traveling information and surrounding information locally sensed by each vehicle. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 22, 2025, pg. 4).
Newly applied art Avedisov (US 20220114895 A1) teaches a server (Avedisov: [104]) controlled system that provides travelling directions to a plurality of vehicles (Avedisov: Fig. 9; [A-E]) based on data collected from RSUs (Avedisov: ¶ 033) and the vehicles themselves (Avedisov: ¶ 033). The vehicle- and RSU-collected data obtained by the server would be teach or suggest “determination at the server is performed using field information aggregated from all vehicles, including traveling information and surrounding information locally sensed by each vehicle” to a person of ordinary skill in the art priority.
Applicant also argues:
Additionally, claim 1 recites that each vehicle executes traveling control based on both its own local sensor information and the traveling control information generated and transmitted by the server. These features emphasize the dual-source decision process, i.e., local sensing at the vehicle and global aggregated analysis at the server that distinguishes the invention structurally and operationally from Jacobus and Jammoussi. Claim 1 recites that the server determines priority based on field information collected from the plurality of vehicles including travelling information and surrounding information locally sensed by each vehicle. This feature is not taught or suggested by Jacobus. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 22, 2025, pg. 6).
Newly applied art Avedisov (US 20220114895 A1) further teaches that in some cases, the vehicle may perform the server-assigned task autonomously (Avedisov: ¶ 098; server may transmit driving instructions comprising the determined driving maneuvers to the appropriate connected vehicles. The connected vehicles may receive the driving instructions and may perform the driving maneuvers contained therein. For autonomous connected vehicles, the vehicles may perform the driving maneuvers autonomously). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that autonomous performance of a driving task such as merging (Avedisov: ¶ 093) with non-autonomous vehicles (Avedisov: ¶ 025) would require reliance on locally generated real-time sensor information.
Thus, Avedisov in combination with pervious applied art Jacobus (US 20190088148 A1) which teaches control traffic flow based on a most efficient priority in lieu of specifically following the rules of travel using a combination of server-provided maps and V2V-based sensor sharing teaches the combined limitations of claim 1 because, as Avedisov suggests an edge server can be cloud based or platoon-leader based (Avedisov: ¶ 032) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Jacobus V2V connection could be substituted for Avedisov’s ‘edge server’ to generate a complete traffic picture for vehicle control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Kato (JP2018190135A) which discloses a method for merging from non-priority roads at an intersection where a priority road and a non-priority road intersect.
Also made of record is Yusa (US 20210043076 A1) which teaches a method of measuring congestion at an intersection for giving a subordinate travelling direction priority based upon the number of cars in a geographical region over a period of time.
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