DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed May 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended. Claim 3 is presently canceled. Claims 2 and 4 were previously canceled. Claim 7 is new. Therefore, claims 1 and 5-7 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
The applicant’s Remarks, filed May 22, 2026, has been fully considered. The applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks that claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated February 23, 2026, and that since claim 3 has been canceled, the rejection can be withdrawn. The examiner agrees and withdraws that rejection. The examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections related to that.
The applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks that the title has been amended to be consistent with amended claim 1. The examiner accepts the new title.
The applicant argues on pages 5-7 of the Remarks that the prior art of record does not teach claim 1 as amended.
The present amendment to claim 1 teaches largely what can be seen in Fig. 2 of the present published disclosure, Oyama et al. (US2024/0067210). Present claim 1 recites “a first road traffic vehicle and configured to acquire first road traffic
Present claim 1 then claims “a second road traffic information acquisition unit which is included in a monitoring apparatus provided along a road and configured to acquire second road traffic information”. This can broadly and reasonably be considered item 50 in Fig. 2.
Present claim 1 then claims “a road traffic information recognition unit which is provided to [[the]]a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic area”. This can broadly and reasonably be considered item 70 in Fig. 2 of the present disclosure.
Present claim 1 recites that item 70 is “configured to recognize road traffic information based on the first road traffic from the vehicle and the second road traffic information received from the monitoring apparatus”.
So vehicles 5 and fixed roadside camera 50 send traffic information to the traffic control apparatus 70.
Claim 1 teaches that item 70 then computers “control information for the vehicle…based on the road traffic information”. This control information includes “a target value or a control instruction value of control for the vehicle to urgently avoid a collision with an obstacle”. This can broadly and reasonably be interpreted to mean that item 70 computes emergency control for the vehicle, which can reasonably include braking or swerving or both.
Claim 1 then recites that the vehicle is configured to “execute” a “target deceleration” sent to it by item 70.
Claim 1 also recites that when this braking alone will not avoid an obstacle, item 70 further commands “a target s teered angle for the vehicle”.
How does all this relate to the prior art? In the examiner’s view, Ohlarik Fig. 7 essentially exactly matches the present disclosure’s Fig. 2 and Fig. 12. Ohlarik, Fig. 6 teaches the method used with the system of Figs. 2 and 12. According to Fig. 6 of Ohlarik, a roadside server collects information from vehicles and roadside sensors, such as cameras, and then in step 690, sends an alert to the vehicle. As the examiner wrote in the summary of the rejection of claim 1 in the last detailed action “This is but a step away from teaching actually commanding the vehicles to stop.”
It seems to the examiner that the patentability of claim 1 hinges on whether any prior art reference teaches a server that not only warns a vehicle but further commands it to stop or make an evasive maneuver. It seems to the examiner that since Ohlarik teaches a roadside server that sends a warning to a vehicle about an impending collision, art that teaches send a warning and a control command would obviously combine. That seems to be true even if the server does not teach everything in Ohlarik, such as receiving first and second traffic information from a vehicle and camera. Ohlarik teaches collecting this information and predicting a collision. As long as a server teaches that once a collision is predicted the server can further generate and send commands for avoidance to a vehicle, that would seem to be enough in the examiner’s mind.
This is especially convincing because a large body of prior art teaches highly similar systems to the present application’s Fig. 2 and Fig. 7. Some of these references have already been cited in the prosecution history. For example, Ichimaru et al. (US2020/0005644). Ichimaru teaches in at least Fig. 14 a nearly identical system as in the present application. In Ichimaru, a driver may be “sleepy,” based on sensor analysis. Therefore, the server will “update dynamic information” and send it to the vehicle, according to at least Fig. 15.
According to Ichimaru, paragraph 0160, the “control unit 51” can not only “output an alert to the occupant who is driving” but it can also go further by “executing forced brake intervention.” Yet, according to paragraphs 0147-0148 item 51 is on the vehicle 5.
Another close prior art is Suehiro et al. (US2023/0311941). Suehiro teaches in Fig. 1 a “roadside sensor 24” and a “vehicle 22” that both send information to a “base station” 20-1. The base station is connected to an edge server 30. The system works within each “support-provided area,” such as 21-1.
As seen in Fig. 2, which depicts the edge server 30, the server 30 receives information through the reception unit 34 and uses it to generate “support information” including “dynamic information” and “control information.” This information is then output via the transmission unit 38.
See paragraph 0021 for each mobile terminal transmitting mobile terminal information to the edge server 30. This includes “the location, the velocity, and the size of that mobile terminal”. The mobile terminal can be a pedestrian 23 or a vehicle 22.
See paragraph 0029 for the reception unit 34 of the server 30 receiving all the information from the vehicle 22 and pedestrian’s terminal 23, and the roadside sensor 24.
See paragraph 055 for the server 30 sending out via the transmission unit 38 “support information generated”. See paragraph 0051 for this including “dynamic information and control information”. See paragraph 0031 for “the control information is information of travel route recommended for each self-driving vehicle present in the support-provided area 21.” Note that according to paragraph 0003 a “self-driving vehicle” is an autonomous vehicle. Paragraph 0003 teaches that autonomous vehicle’s typically generate their own control using “only sensors installed on that vehicle” or perhaps through V2V but the present disclosure is related to a server generating the commands for the autonomous vehicles.
See Suehiro Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Due to the applicant’s amendments, which incorporate the roadside sensor for the first time in claim 1, the new reference of Suehiro will be used to rejection the claims. Please see the rejections below.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims 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 Suehiro et al. (US2023/0311941) in view of Takeki (JP2009134704A) in further view of Morotomi (US2018/0257644).
Regarding claim 1, Suehiro teaches:
A driving assist assist see Fig. 1. In Fig. 1 a “roadside sensor 24” and pedestrian’s terminal 23, a “vehicle 22” all send information to a “base station” 20-1. The base station is connected to an edge server 30. The system works within each “support-provided area,” such as 21-1. See also Fig. 2. As seen in Fig. 2, which depicts the edge server 30, the server 30 receives information through the reception unit 34 and uses it to generate “support information” including “dynamic information” and “control information.” This information is then output via the transmission unit 38.):
a first road traffic see Fig. 1 for vehicle 22. See paragraph 0021 for each mobile terminal, including vehicle 22, transmitting mobile terminal information to the edge server 30. This information includes “the location, the velocity, and the size of that mobile terminal”.);
a second road traffic information acquisition unit which is included in a monitoring apparatus provided along a road and configured to acquire second road traffic information; (in the present published disclosure, see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 0028 for “a monitoring apparatus 50 provided along a road”. See Fig. 1 for item 50 containing item 51. See paragraph 0051 for item 51 being “a camera unit”. According to Fig. 2 and paragraph 0053, the monitoring apparatus 50 with its camera 51 can send data to the “traffic control apparatus 70.”
With that in mind, see Suehiro Fig. 1 for roadside sensor 24. See paragraph 0022 for the roadside sensor 24 sending detection information to the edge server 30.)
Ohlarik]
a road traffic information recognition unit which is provided to [[the]]a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic area and configured to recognize road traffic information based on the first road traffic from the vehicle and the second road traffic information received from the monitoring apparatus in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0074 and Fig. 1 for the “road traffic information recognition unit” being “information recognition_ECU 72”. As shown in Fig. 1 the information recognition_ECU 72 is part of the traffic control apparatus 70.
With that in mind, see Suehiro, Fig. 1. In Fig. 1 for an edge server 30, which is “a traffic control apparatus”. See Fig. 2, which depicts the edge server 30, the server 30 receives information through the reception unit 34, which is “a road traffic information recognition unit”. In Suehiro, the server 30 uses the received information to generate “support information” including “dynamic information” and “control information.” This information is then output via the transmission unit 38.);
a control information computation unit which is provided to the traffic control apparatus and configured to compute, as control information for the vehicle present in the traffic control area and based on the road traffic information, at least a target value or a control instruction value of control for the vehicle to urgently avoid a collision with an obstacle (see Suehiro Fig. 2 for the “support information generation unit” 35 that generates generate support information for the vehicle including “dynamic information” and “control information.” See paragraph 055 for the server 30 sending out via the transmission unit 38 “support information generated”. See paragraph 0051 for this including “dynamic information and control information”. See paragraph 0031 for “the control information is information of travel route recommended for each self-driving vehicle present in the support-provided area 21.” Note that according to paragraph 0003 a “self-driving vehicle” is an autonomous vehicle. Paragraph 0003 teaches that autonomous vehicle’s typically generate their own control using “only sensors installed on that vehicle” or perhaps through V2V but the present disclosure is related to a server generating the commands for the autonomous vehicles.).
Yet Suehiro does not explicitly further teach:
a driving control execution unit which is mounted to the vehicle and configured to execute driving control based on the control information received from the traffic control apparatus
the control information computation unit computes, as the control information, a target deceleration for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency braking control, and
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking control, the control information computation unit further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency steering control.
However, Takeki teaches:
a driving control execution unit which is mounted to the vehicle and configured to execute driving control based on the control information received from the traffic control apparatus see Takeki embodiment (3) shown in Fig. 8 and 10, as well as the safe travel control device 30 that is mounted on the vehicle, which is a “driving control execution unit.” The unit receives commands from a server and executes them. Takeki teaches on page 8 of the attached English translation that: “FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining a schematic configuration of the safe driving support system according to the embodiment (3). In the embodiment (3), the detection status analysis units 15 and 15A, the risk calculation units 16 and 16A, the control information output unit 17 in the periphery monitoring devices 10 and 10A according to the above embodiments (1) and (2), The configuration corresponding to 17A (see FIG. 1) is provided not on the vehicle side but on the monitoring center 100 side connected to the roadside device 50”. Thus, risk calculation and control information is generated “not on the vehicle side but on the monitoring center 100 side”.), wherein
the control information computation unit computes, as the control information, a target deceleration for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency braking control (see Takeki page 4 which states that “In the safe travel control device 30, when another vehicle is present ahead of the host vehicle based on the vehicle control information acquired from the surroundings monitoring device 10, the warning buzzer 35 is activated when the risk of collision with the other vehicle increases. The brake control device performs control to sound a warning or display a warning on the display device 34 to notify the driver of the danger of a collision, or when the collision avoidance operation by the driver is inappropriate and the collision cannot be avoided. 31 to operate the brake even if there is no brake operation, or to control the seat belt control device 33 to control the operation of winding the seat belt, thereby reducing the impact at the time of collision, It is designed to reduce the damage.” So Takeki teaches a system which not only activates a “warning buzzer” but also can “operate the brake” even when the driver does not do so.
Additionally, Takeki teaches on page 5 which that “Furthermore, a steering control device that assists the steering of the steering can be included as a device connected to the safe traveling control device 30. According to such a configuration, when the risk of collision with another vehicle ahead is larger than a certain value (the risk of collision becomes considerably high), the steering control device outputs from the safe traveling control device 30. Based on the control signal, it is possible to assist the driver's steering operation by performing control to automatically steer the steering in a direction that avoids collision with another vehicle or suppresses damage from collision.” So Takeki also teaches that the system can “automatically steer” so that the host vehicle “avoids collision with another vehicle”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suehiro, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Takeki. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid a collision or reduce the damage, as recognized by Takeki (see page 5).
The examiner submits that combining the old elements used in the present rejection together would perform the same functions in combination as they did separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. This combination therefore corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
The vehicle of Suehiro receives collision avoidance commands from the server and then executes those demands. The vehicle in Suehiro inherently has a driving control execution unit on the vehicle to receive the commands and execute the command, including a deceleration command. The examiner could have argued that in the rejection, but instead cited Takeki only because Takeki is more explicit.
Yet Suehiro and Takeki do not further teach:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking control, the control information computation unit further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency steering control.
However, Morotomi teaches:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking control, the control information computation unit further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency steering control (see Morotomi paragraph 0025, the last sentence and paragraph 0069. See also paragraphs 0073-0074.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Park and Ohlarik, to add the additional features of: when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking control, the control information computation unit further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle by autonomous emergency steering control, as taught by Morotomi. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid a collision, as recognized by Morotomi (see paragraph 0069).
The examiner submits that combining the old elements used in the present rejection together would perform the same functions in combination as they did separately. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. This combination therefore corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suehiro et al. (US2023/0311941) in view of Takeki (JP2009134704A) in further view of Morotomi (US2018/0257644) in further view of Park et al. (KR102140336B1).
5. (Currently Amended)
Regarding claim 5, Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi teach the driving assist
Yet Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi do not explicitly further teach:
The driving assist
when another vehicle is to be affected by a behavior of the vehicle for which the control information has been computed, the control information computation unit also computes the control information for collision avoidance for the other vehicle when necessary.
However, Park teaches:
The driving assist
when another vehicle is to be affected by a behavior of the vehicle for which the control information has been computed, the control information computation unit also computes the control information for collision avoidance for the other vehicle when necessary (see Park page 3 of the previously attached English translation for the system disclosed being “capable of designing a collision avoidance path” for “each of a plurality of vehicles in order to prevent collisions between a plurality of vehicles.” As shown in Fig. 7 collision avoidance paths may be generated for both vehicles 11 and 13, but not for vehicle 12 because it’s not necessary.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi, to add the additional features indicated as being taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid a collision, as recognized by Park (see page 3).
This combination corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suehiro et al. (US2023/0311941) in view of Takeki (JP2009134704A) in further view of Morotomi (US2018/0257644) in further view of Zhang (US2020/0406914).
Regarding claim 6, Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi teach the driving assist
Yet Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi do not further teach:
The driving assist
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received from the traffic control apparatus
However, Zhang teaches:
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received from the traffic control apparatus see Zhang paragraph 0014. See also paragraphs 0033-0034 which teach that passengers can use ADS systems while driving. But even in those cases, the serve commands can still override the vehicle-generated commands.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suehiro, Takeki, and Morotomi to add the additional features indicated as taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce unsafe driving, as recognized by Zhang (see paragraphs 0004 and 0035).
This combination corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suehiro et al. (US2023/0311941) in view of Takeki (JP2009134704A) in further view of Morotomi (US2018/0257644) in further view of Park et al. (KR102140336B1) in further view of Zhang (US2020/0406914).
Regarding claim 7, Suehiro, Takeki, Morotomi, and Park teach the driving assist system for vehicles according to claim 5.
Yet Suehiro, Takeki, Morotomi, and Park do not further teach:
The driving assist system for vehicles according to claim 5, wherein
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received from the traffic control apparatus over control information related to an improvement in convenience for a driver separately calculated in the vehicle.
However, Zhang teaches:
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received from the traffic control apparatus over control information related to an improvement in convenience for a driver separately calculated in the vehicle (see Zhang paragraph 0014. See also paragraphs 0033-0034 which teach that passengers can use ADS systems while driving. But even in those cases, the serve commands can still override the vehicle-generated commands.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Suehiro, Takeki, Morotomi, and Park to add the additional features indicated as taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce unsafe driving, as recognized by Zhang (see paragraphs 0004 and 0035).
This combination corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamata et al. (US2020/0298880) which teaches that a server 20 can take priority over a server 10. But as seen in Fig. 1, these are both external servers from the vehicle 30.
The IDS filed May 26, 2026 includes the reference WO2009060581. That reference in its original is Takeki (JP2009134704A), herein after Takeki. Takeki teaches a “monitoring center 100 that “includes a server 111” that has “a risk level calculation unit 114, and a control information output unit 115.” The server “receives vehicle information transmitted from the vehicle side (same data as in Fig. 2A) via the roadside device 50, and receives vehicle control information output from the control information output unit 115 on the roadside.” Takeki teaches that “The control information output unit 115 outputs the vehicle control information to the communication unit 112.”
“When the vehicle M1 receives the data including the vehicle control information transmitted via the roadside device 50 (step S40), the vehicle M1 performs a process of outputting the received vehicle control information to the safe travel control device 30 (step S41).”
Does Takeki teach that an external server commands a vehicle to stop or swerve? Takeki teaches at the beginning that: “a periphery monitoring device (1)” with “control information output means.”
Where is this “periphery monitoring device (1)” located? Takeki teaches that “if the periphery monitoring device (1) is mounted on a vehicle, it is possible to execute various vehicle controls that support safe driving in consideration of the detection (monitoring) status of the vehicles. It is possible to execute vehicle control that is appropriate for the situation and that takes safety into consideration.”
Then Takeki immediately goes on to teach that “Further, the periphery monitoring device (1) is not only mounted on the vehicle, but also provided outside the vehicle, for example, a roadside machine capable of wireless communication with the vehicle or a monitoring center capable of communicating with the roadside machine. It can also be. With such a configuration, since the detection status of the vehicles is analyzed by the roadside machine or the monitoring center, the vehicle detects the detection status (monitoring status) of the vehicles analyzed by the roadside machine or the monitoring center. By taking in the vehicle control information in which the detection situation is taken into consideration, it becomes possible to execute various vehicle controls that support safe driving in consideration of the detection situation between the vehicles. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the cost of parts without increasing the functions of the device on the vehicle side (calculation function for analysis processing, etc.), and also to ensure appropriate and safe according to the detection status between vehicles. Considered vehicle control can be executed.”
This means that the periphery monitoring device (1) can be located either onboard the vehicle or offboard the vehicle. When the periphery monitoring device (1) is mounted offboard, i.e., externally, from the vehicle, the sensor data is “analyzed by the roadside machine or the monitoring center”. In this configuration “it becomes possible to execute various vehicle controls that support safe driving in consideration of the detection situation between the vehicles.” These two options essentially mean that any command to the host vehicle coming from the host vehicle’s own computer could just as well have come from the external server.
Takei also adds that by using an external server or monitoring center “it is possible to suppress the cost of parts”. This strongly implies that using a monitoring center makes it so that all the vehicles do not have to have high-powered computers on them. Overall, the system can ensure that driving is “appropriate and safe.”
Takeki calls embodiments in which the control information is generated onboard the vehicle embodiments (1) and (2). Takeki calls the embodiment in which control information is generated at the external server “embodiment (3)”.
In embodiment (3), Takeki references Fig. 8 and 10. Takeki teaches that: “FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining a schematic configuration of the safe driving support system according to the embodiment (3). In the embodiment (3), the detection status analysis units 15 and 15A, the risk calculation units 16 and 16A, the control information output unit 17 in the periphery monitoring devices 10 and 10A according to the above embodiments (1) and (2), The configuration corresponding to 17A (see FIG. 1) is provided not on the vehicle side but on the monitoring center 100 side connected to the roadside device 50”. Thus, risk calculation and control information is generated “not on the vehicle side but on the monitoring center 100 side”. The vehicle receives control information, including braking and steering, but this is merely a pass through. The server commands the vehicle to brake or swerve.
FIG. 10, which relates to embodiment (3), is a block diagram showing a schematic configuration of the monitoring center 100 constituting the safe driving support system according to the embodiment (3). The monitoring center 100 is configured to include a periphery monitoring device 110. The peripheral monitoring device 110 includes a server 111, and the server 111 is a computer having functions as a communication control unit 112, a detection status analysis unit 113, a risk level calculation unit 114, and a control information output unit 115.” In this embodiment, the peripheral monitoring device 110, as enclosed in the monitoring center 100, is external to the vehicle, as seen in Fig. 8. The monitoring center 100 outputs “control information”.
Specifically, “the control information output unit 115” determines the “degree of collision risk” and “outputs the vehicle control information to the communication control unit 112.”
According to Takeki, when “vehicle M2 has entered the communication area of roadside device 50” the monitoring center 100 will begin receiving data from it.
Takeki also states that “ According to the safe driving support system in which the periphery monitoring device 110 according to the above embodiment (3) is adopted, since the detection status of the vehicles is analyzed at the monitoring center 100, the vehicle is analyzed at the monitoring center 100. By detecting vehicle detection status (peripheral monitoring status) and vehicle control information in consideration of the detection status, various vehicle controls that support safe driving are performed in consideration of the detection status of the vehicles. It becomes possible. Therefore, it is possible to suppress the cost of parts without increasing the functions of the device on the vehicle side (calculation function for analysis processing, etc.), and also to ensure appropriate and safe according to the detection status between vehicles. Considered vehicle control can be executed.” This means that the external monitoring center 100 not only is configured for “detecting vehicle status” but also generating “various vehicle controls.”
Does the control information output from the monitoring center 100 in Takeki including braking and steering? Yes.
Takeki states that “In the safe travel control device 30, when another vehicle is present ahead of the host vehicle based on the vehicle control information acquired from the surroundings monitoring device 10, the warning buzzer 35 is activated when the risk of collision with the other vehicle increases. The brake control device performs control to sound a warning or display a warning on the display device 34 to notify the driver of the danger of a collision, or when the collision avoidance operation by the driver is inappropriate and the collision cannot be avoided. 31 to operate the brake even if there is no brake operation, or to control the seat belt control device 33 to control the operation of winding the seat belt, thereby reducing the impact at the time of collision, It is designed to reduce the damage.” So Takeki teaches a system which not only activates a “warning buzzer” but also can “operate the brake” even when the driver does not do so.
Additionally, Takeki teaches that “Furthermore, a steering control device that assists the steering of the steering can be included as a device connected to the safe traveling control device 30. According to such a configuration, when the risk of collision with another vehicle ahead is larger than a certain value (the risk of collision becomes considerably high), the steering control device outputs from the safe traveling control device 30. Based on the control signal, it is possible to assist the driver's steering operation by performing control to automatically steer the steering in a direction that avoids collision with another vehicle or suppresses damage from collision.” So Takeki also teaches that the system can “automatically steer” so that the host vehicle “avoids collision with another vehicle”.
Takeki summarizes this by writing “In other words, the brake control device 31 takes in the control signal output from the safe traveling control device 30, and based on the control signal, control for forcibly operating the brake is performed even if there is no brake operation.” The safe traveling control device 30 controls the actuators of the vehicle.
In embodiments (1) and (2), the control signals the control device 30 receives comes from the host vehicle itself. But in embodiment (3) the control device 30 “receives vehicle control information” directly “from the roadside device 50,” which received it from the monitoring center 100. That control information from item 50 is output to item 30 and then passed along to the vehicle actuators. So the automatic braking and steering taught by Takehi applies to the case in which these control decisions are made remotely.
It is true that Takeki does not teach a roadside camera. But that is taught by others.
See Takeki Fig. 8 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
390
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights