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 7-9 are pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently amended.
Claims 8-9 are newly presented.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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; (Avedisov: ¶ 020; a server may include a controller configured to . . . determine locations of connected vehicles and non-connected vehicles in the initial vehicle configuration based on the first locations and the second locations; determine an optimal vehicle configuration comprising desired locations of the connected vehicles and the non-connected vehicles) 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.)
To the extent 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, even when the first vehicle has lower priority under the priority rule in traffic, compared to the other vehicle; and the server is configured to; identify current positions of the plurality of vehicles based on the field information collected from the plurality of vehicles, map current travelling conditions of the plurality of vehicles onto a current road map, and determine, based on the current road map indicating that following vehicles of a predetermined number or more exist behind the first vehicle, to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle, each of the following vehicles being one of the plurality of vehicles.
such that a travelling of the first vehicle has priority over a travelling of an other vehicle, (Jacobus ¶ 023; Messages may again include information regarding status, location, speed, direction, and other planned intent to proximal vehicles, pedestrians and/or other moving entities or objects in the driving environment.) the server is configured to identify current positions (Jacobus ¶ 010; sensor set facilitates self-location using one or more of lane marker detection, GPS) of the plurality of vehicles based on the field information collected from the plurality of vehicles, (Jacobus ¶ 022; Messages may include information regarding status, location, speed, direction, and other planned intent to proximal vehicles) map current travelling conditions of the plurality of vehicles onto a current road map, (Jacobus ¶ 187; derived from a digital map onboard each vehicle) and determine, based on the current road map indicating that following vehicles of a predetermined number or more exist behind the first vehicle, (Jacobus ¶ 023; Manually driven vehicles are also equipped with communications capabilities enabling messaging between proximate AV or manual vehicles . . . Messages may again include information regarding status, location, speed, direction, and other planned intent to proximal vehicles, pedestrians and/or other moving entities or objects in the driving environment.) to temporarily give priority to the first vehicle, each of the following vehicles being one of the plurality of vehicles. (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).
Claims 4 and 9 are 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 a second vehicle 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 a second vehicle travelling on the second lane having higher priority based on the priority rule in traffic and a third vehicle travelling behind the second vehicle. (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), and generate the travelling control information instructing the third vehicle to stop. (Horibe: Fig. 13; [showing a third vehicle behind the second vehicle])
PNG
media_image1.png
610
439
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 Horibe with the teachings of Avedisov because doing enables the predictable improvement of smoother merging (Horibe: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Avedisov in view of Horibe teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. Avedisov further teaches:
wherein the server is configured to (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.)
And Horibe teaches: determine whether or not the first vehicle is given the priority, (Horibe: ¶ 163; traffic jam prediction monitoring center 10 uses the priority order adjustment unit 17d, and the traffic jam prediction control device 20 uses the priority order decision method for determining the priority order between the vehicles) in a case that the first vehicle in the first lane has a speed lower than a predetermined speed or is stopped. (Horibe: ¶ 042; determines whether or not the vehicle speed
of the passed vehicle is equal to or lower than the vehicle speed at the time of traffic jam (S12), and determines that the vehicle is congested when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the vehicle speed at the time of traffic jam)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to claims 1 and 4-9. Applicant argues that:
claim 1 defines a particular server-side, map-based determination of whether a traffic condition behind the lower-priority first vehicle warrants a temporary departure from the ordinary traffic priority rule. . . . Avedisov's general edge-server optimization is not the claimed server-side, current-road-map-based priority determination . . . The distinction is important. Avedisov's server optimization may use vehicle locations to determine a desired arrangement of vehicles. But claim 1 defines a particular traffic-priority determination tied to a condition behind the first vehicle. . . . Jacobus does not cure the deficiencies of Avedisov. . . . Jacobus's cited disclosure is a local, vehicle-to-vehicle negotiation for gap creation. Jacobus does not disclose that a server identifies current positions of a plurality of vehicles based on field information collected from the plurality of vehicles. . . . At most, Avedisov discloses generalized server-side vehicle-configuration optimization, while Jacobus discloses local V2V gap negotiation. (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 25, 2026, pg. 6).
Avedisov teaches that:
“. . . a server may include a controller configured to receive, from connected vehicles, first locations of a first set of vehicles in an initial vehicle configuration; receive, from a roadside unit, second locations of a second set of vehicles in the initial vehicle configuration; determine locations of connected vehicles and non-connected vehicles in the initial vehicle configuration based on the first locations and the second locations; determine an optimal vehicle configuration comprising desired locations of the connected vehicles and the non-connected vehicles based on the locations of the connected vehicles and the non-connected vehicles in the initial vehicle configuration and predetermined optimization criteria; determine driving maneuvers to be performed by the connected vehicles to achieve the optimal vehicle configuration; and transmit the determined driving maneuvers to the connected vehicles.” Avedisov: ¶ 028.
Consequently, the server is considering optimizing a set of vehicles using the received locations of at least two vehicles. In considering the positions of both vehicles, Avedisov is teaching considering “ . . . a particular traffic-priority determination tied to a condition behind the first vehicle [and] that a server identifies current positions of a plurality of vehicles based on field information collected from the plurality of vehicles” (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 25, 2026, pg. 6). Avedisov’s “optimal vehicle configuration” would be recognized as “desired arrangement of vehicles” by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant also argues:
In Jacobus, the lower- priority vehicle requests gap creation from the higher-priority vehicles, and the higher-priority vehicles respond by slowing to create the hole. That vehicle-to-vehicle process does not require a server to construct a current road map of plural-vehicle travelling conditions, does not require determining a number of following vehicles behind the first vehicle from such a current road map, and does not require the server to temporarily change priority based on such a map-indicated queue condition. Substituting Jacobus's V2V request/acknowledgement process into Avedisov would leave the gap request and response between vehicles. Conversely, retaining Avedisov's server while merely adding Jacobus's gap-creation concept would still not produce the claimed determination based on a current road map indicating a predetermined number of following vehicles behind the first vehicle. . . . The claimed features also address the very problem identified in the specification. The specification explains that merely having vehicles notify other nearby vehicles by V2V communication may be insufficient because suitable line-of-sight communication may not be possible in real-world road environments . . .. Applicant’s Arguments filed June 25, 2026, pg. 8.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Avedisov’s teaching of optimizing a vehicle configuration would result in the predicable benefit of resolving the issues with non-line of sight communications identified by the prior art. In particular, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be suggested to retain Avedisov's server while merely adding Jacobus's gap-creation concept because that would not be a meaningful configuration as it would only add a purposeless sever to the combined invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would seek to combine Avedisov and Jacobus specifically to address the limitations of V2V non-line of sight communications, which requires moving the message target and optimization to the server.
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive.
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. Also newly made of record is Ramasamy et al. (US 10089876 B1) which teaches a server-centric merging system.
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
Prosecution Insights