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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed January 6, 2026 has been entered with the RCE filed the same day. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 2 and 4 were previously canceled. The remaining claims, which are claims 5 and 6, are in previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 3 are the independent claims.
The applicant’s Remarks, filed January 6, 2026, has been fully considered. The applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks that the typographical error in claims 1 and 3 have been corrected. The examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections related to that.
The applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks that the present independent claims as amended are not taught by the cited prior art of record in the last detailed action, which was the Final Rejection dated August 14, 2026. In particular, the applicant also argues on page 6 of the Remarks that the “control information computation unit,” as recited in claim 1 is item 73 in the present disclosure and is part of the roadside traffic infrastructure. In Morotomi (US2018/0257644) in contrast, the device the generates braking commands and evasive maneuver trajectories is a unit “in the vehicle,” according to the applicant.
The examiner agrees that in Morotoni it is the device on the vehicle that determines if braking alone with stop the vehicle and then, if not, the system will calculate an evasive steering maneuver. The examiner further agrees that in the present disclosure, it is server 70 that performs this determination and trajectory generation. But the examiner notes that distributed architecture has long been practiced in the vehicle control art. Disclosures routinely state that processing of trajectories can be done either by the vehicle controller or a server. Park et al. (KR102140336) states on page 3 of the previously attached English translation that “it may take a lot of time to create a path” and a lot of “computation”. That is partly why Park performs the computation at a server. Morotomi was added to the rejection of claim 1 because Morotomi teaches braking then swerving if necessary. Park teaches the idea of performing the evasive maneuver calculations on a server, and Morotomi teaches the specific evasive maneuver procedure in present claim 1. The examiner is respectfully not persuaded by the argument that the combination of Park in view of Morotomi does not meet the limitations of claim 1. Should every computation performed on a vehicle processor be considered novel when performed on a server processor, especially when the examiner cites part teaching performing computations on a server? The examiner does not think so, especially because moving computations to servers is well known in the art.
On a somewhat different topic, the examiner notes that in the claims related to the last detailed action (i.e., the claims filed July 10, 2024) the applicant in claim 3 never recited “a control information computation unit” but only “the control information computation unit”. Emphasis added. In the examiner’s view, claim 3 in particular has been rather opaque in stating where the various claimed units are located. Are they in the vehicle or in the roadside infrastructure? Even the phrase “provided to the movable object” found in claim 1 is not that clear, but as the examiner noted in the last detailed action, the phrase reasonably means that the unit is mounted on the object, i.e., mounted to the vehicle. The examiner has made several notes in the office actions explaining how the claims should be interpreted, though why the phrase “mounted to” is not used in independent claim 3 as it is in claim 1 is not known to the examiner. The examiner notes here that in claim 3 “the traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area” means that item 70 is infrastructure fixed to the ground. It is not part of the moving vehicles. Any other interpretation lacks written description and is not reasonable.
Is there written description for the amendment to claim 3 which recites: “a traffic control apparatus configured to detect an obstacle having a high possibility of a collision with a vehicle in a forward area of a traveling path of the vehicle based on the received first road traffic detection information,”? That is discussed in the 35 USC 112(b) section below.
In a broad reasonable interpretation, it seems to the examiner that claim 3 can be interpreted to teaching at least that a server can determine the TTC of a nearby vehicle to a host vehicle based on information that the host vehicle sends to the server (i.e., claim 3’s “first road traffic detection information”). This is taught by Park page 3 which teaches a system that is “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 Park, Fig. 7, collision avoidance paths may be generated for both vehicles 11 and 13.
Claim 1 and in fact in all the present claims, the examiner notes that item 50 in Fig. 2 is not claimed at all. Nowhere as far as the examiner can tells does the present claims refer to the roadside infrastructure unit with a camera sensor sending data to the server 70. While the claims refer to “recognition” by the server. That does not mean recognition as the term is often used in the art when referring to cameras.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites in part:
a traffic control apparatus configured to detect an obstacle having a high possibility of a collision with a vehicle in a forward area of a traveling path of the vehicle based on the received first road traffic detection information, and
In the present published disclosure, Oyama et al. (US2024/0067210 A1), see paragraph 0028 for the “traffic control apparatuses 70”. Thus the “traffic control apparatus” in claim 3 refers to item 70 in the present disclosure. See Figs. 1 and 2 of the present disclosure for item 70 being separate from the vehicle. According to paragraph 0057 it is an “edge server (so-called MEC server)”. The traffic control apparatus in the present claim is non-mobile server. The server 70 is not even an infrastructure with a sensor, which is item 50 in Figs. 1 and 2.
In what sense does this server or roadside infrastructure “detect an obstacle”? Does item 70 have a camera or some other similar sensor? According to paragraph 0035, item 70 receives information from sensors on the vehicles. This does not support the claim that item 70 “detects an obstacle”. Paragraph 0063 teaches that item 70 (or components within it), can include a road map database 75. Paragraph 0066 teaches that the road map database can be updated dynamically with the positions of the vehicles in the vicinity of the roadside infrastructure, item 70. But this does not mean that the traffic control apparatus 70 is “configured to detect an obstacle” as claimed. Indeed, paragraph 0068 states that item 70 (or really item 72 within it) analyzes “road traffic detection information received from the driving control apparatus 10 of each vehicle 5”. Emphasis added. It is the vehicle 5 that performs “detection”. Item 70 or ECU 72 within it analyzes this information.
In the disclosure, vehicles provide first road traffic detection information and the roadside infrastructure 50 provides second road traffic detection information. The server can receive this data and analyze it.
Paragraph 0076 perhaps comes the closest to providing written description. It recites that “when an obstacle having a high possibility of collision with the vehicle 5 is detected in a forward area of the traveling path of the vehicle 5 based on the road map information on which the road traffic information has been reflected, the traveling_ECU 73 computes control information for autonomous emergency braking control”. Generally, this term “forward area” of the vehicle refers to the area imaged by the main camera of the vehicle, as taught in paragraph 0031. In that paragraph, camera 11 detects “forward area Af (see Fig. 3)”. The examiner notes that paragraph 0076 is the only place in the disclosure that refers to a “high possibility of collision”. Paragraph 0132 recites “a possibility of collision” which ECU 73, which is part of the server 70 “determines…based on road traffic information”. This is related to Fig. 9 and 10, step S401. Paragraph 0133 teaches that “it is checked whether the vehicle 5 having a possibility of collision with the obstacle is present.”
Does this mean that vehicles only transmit their locations via GNSS or GPS to the server and that the “traffic control apparatus [is] configured to detect an obstacle having a high possibility of a collision with a vehicle in a forward area of a traveling path of the vehicle based on the received first road traffic detection information”? What is the “first traffic information and what provides it? According paragraph 0042, vehicle 5 can have an acceleration sensor 14, speed sensor 15, gyro sensor 16, and GNSS (aka GPS) receiver 17, all of which be examples of the a first road traffic detection information acquisition unit. This “road traffic detection information” is more than just GNSS data. Paragraph 0038 even states that “road map information” comes from the vehicle 5 and infrastructure 50. Both vehicle 5 and infrastructure 50 can detect obstacle locations and trajectories and transmit them to the server 70 for analysis. In some embodiments, such as the one in paragraph 0044, the ECU 22, which is part of the vehicle (see Fig. 1) can compute braking and evasive maneuvers, though in the present claim is the server 70 that performs these computations. The examiner notes that distributed architecture in which computations can be done either on a vehicle or a server are fairly common in the vehicle control art.
Paragraph 0071 teaches that ECU 72 can perform pattern matching form image information. This can include “recognition” of 3D objects such as curbs and guardrails. This is referring to obtaining data detected by the vehicles and classifying it through computational analysis. This too is not “detection”. The word “detection” is used in the disclosure to refer to “detection information” obtained by the vehicle, as seen in at least claim 1 in the published disclosure. This is true except for paragraph 0076.
Claim 3 recites in its entirety:
A driving control apparatus for vehicles, the driving control apparatus comprising:
a road traffic detection information acquisition unit configured to acquire first road traffic detection information;
a traffic control apparatus configured to detect an obstacle having a high possibility of a collision with a vehicle in a forward area of a traveling path of the vehicle based on the received first road traffic detection information, and
a communication device configured to
transmit the first road traffic detection information to [[a]] the traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area and
to receive control information computed in the traffic control apparatus so as to include at least a target value or a control instruction value of control for [[a]]the vehicle to urgently avoid a collision with [[an]] the obstacle; and
a driving control execution unit configured to execute driving control based on the control information,
whereinthe traffic control apparatus computes, as the control information, a target deceleration for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency braking
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency steering control.
The preamble “A driving control apparatus for vehicles” implies that the apparatus is not a “system” of multiple devices as in claim 1, but a single apparatus. Furthermore, even if it is “for vehicles” does that mean it is mounted on a vehicle? That is unclear.
After the preamble, the claim recites a “a traffic control apparatus” which is a server in the disclosure. This makes the claim not distinctly claimed. Is the claim for a system including a server and a vehicle? Or is the claim just for a unit that is mounted on the vehicle being claimed? It is unclear.
This lack of clarity is compounded by the fact that the claim recites that the “traffic control apparatus [is] configured to detect”. This suggests that the traffic control apparatus is part of the vehicle, and that the detection could be reasonable related to a camera, but that is not the case.
According to the claim, the detection is “based on the received first road traffic detection information”. What
In the context of paragraph 0076, paragraph 0074 teaches that “In this manner in the present example, the information recognition_ECU 72 corresponds to a specific example which may serve as a road traffic information recognition unit.” What is the “a road traffic information recognition unit” referred to in this paragraph? Paragraph 0164 teaches “an information recognition unit 11d which recognizes the road traffic information based on the distance image information generated in the IPU 11c is provided to [incorporated with] the camera unit 11.” Paragraph 0155 recites “a first road traffic detection acquisition unit”. The examiner notes that “a road traffic information recognition unit” that may be part of item 72 is not the same as a “information detection unit” that is part of the vehicle 5. The two terms are different.
Overall, claim 3 needs to state where the “the first road traffic detection information” comes from. If it comes from a communication device, what that communication device is mounted to must be stated because more than one device has a communication device, in fact the vehicle 5, roadside infrastructure 50, and server 70 all do.
For examination purposes, the preamble will be interpreted as teaching a system. The first road traffic detection information will be interpreted as coming from the vehicle. The “a traffic control apparatus configured to detect an obstacle” will be interpreted as the server 70.
The examiner will allow claim 3 to use the phrase “detect” by the barest of margins. Paragraph 0076 uses that word in the context of the server. It does not mean “detect” as a camera or lidar detects. It means compute or determine.
In a broad reasonable interpretation, it seems to the examiner that claim 3 can broadly and reasonably be interpreted to teaching at least that a server can determine the TTC of a nearby vehicle to a host vehicle based on information that the host vehicle sends to the server. As explained in the notes found in the last detailed action in the rejection of claim 1 the “traffic control apparatus” corresponds to item 70 in Fig. 2. Item 70 does not include any sensors, such as cameras or lidar. It receives sensor data and can analyze sensor data. The examiner notes that Ohlarik Fig. 7 closely resembled the present disclosure’s, Fig. 2. Both showed a vehicle and roadside sensors all in communication with a server. Park, Fig. 1 lacks the roadside infrastructure unit but includes the vehicle computer. Park also teaches that the server can generate an avoidance trajectory. See Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100, which is a server, obtaining location information of each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles, and then using this information to generate an evasion route for the vehicles when necessary. See page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”.
Claim 3 also recites “a high possibility of a collision”. While the specification uses the term “high possibility” it does not explain how a high possibility verses, say, a low possibility is determined. The term “high” is therefore a relative term. For examination purposes, the phrase quoted here will be interpreted without the word high.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR102140336 B1) in view of Ohlarik et al. (US2021/0312811 A1) in further view of Morotomi (US2018/0257644 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches:
A driving control system for vehicles, the driving control system comprising (see Park Fig. 1):
a first road traffic detection information acquisition unit which is provided to avehicle and configured to acquire first road traffic detection information (in the present published disclosure, Oyama et al. (US2024/0067210 A1), see paragraph 0042 for the teaching that the acceleration sensor 14, the speed sensor 15, the gyro sensor 16, the GNSS receiver 17, can all be examples of the a first road traffic detection information acquisition unit. Note that the phrase “provided to” will be interpreted to mean: mounted on. This interpretation is supported by Fig. 1 which has all the items 14-17 just discussed incorporated into item 10. Fig. 2 shows that item 10 is mounted on each vehicle.
With that in mind, see Park, the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of the attached English translation for a system that obtains the location data, which is essentially GNSS data, of a plurality of vehicles. This means the vehicles have a GPS sensor. See page 7 for the “user terminal 200” which is part of “an infotainment system of a vehicle equipped with a sensor (e.g., a GPS sensor)”. Thus, in Park, the user terminal 200 is part of each of the plurality of vehicles. Note that this clause of the claim uses the term “movable object” while later clauses recite “a vehicle”.);
a first communication device provided to the vehicle in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0042 and Fig. 1 for the first communication device being item 18. As shown in Fig. 1, item 18 allows the vehicle to communicate with the traffic control apparatus 70. With that in mind, see Park Fig. 1 for the user device 200 communicating with the “vehicle collision avoidance route generation device 100”. See page 7 for the user terminal 200 being “connected” to the collision avoidance path generation device 100 “through the network 400”. This leaves no doubt that item 200 of Park has what the present claim calls a first communication device. Note that in Park, the user device 200 and the vehicle collision avoidance route generation device 100 are respectively analogous to present claim 1’s recitation of the driving control apparatus 10 and the traffic control apparatus 70.);
a second communication device provided to a traffic control apparatus note that here and elsewhere the examiner has double struck through a phrase in order to more clearly show what he is arguing Park does and does not teach in order to provide a clear detailed action in the interest of compact prosecution. In the present disclosure, see paragraph 0062 and Fig. 1 for the second communication device being transceiver 74. See Fig. 1 for the transceiver 74 being connected to the traffic control apparatus 70. See Fig. 2 for the traffic control apparatus 70 being in a traffic control area. With that in mind, see Park page 7 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 being connected to the user terminal 200 “through the network 400”. This leaves no doubt that item 100 of Park has what the present claim calls a second communication device. See page 7 for the apparatus 100 having “a network interface or (communication interface) not shown”.);
a road traffic information recognition unit which is provided to the traffic control apparatus and configured to recognize road traffic information based on the first road traffic detection information received by the second communication device through the first communication device (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 Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 obtaining location information of each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles.);
a control information computation unit which is provided to the traffic control apparatus and configured to compute, as control information for a vehicle present in the traffic control area and based on the road traffic information, at least (in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0060 and Fig. 1 for the “control information computation unit” being “traveling_ECU 73”.
With that in mind, see Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 obtaining location information of each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles, and then using this information to generate an evasion route for the vehicles when necessary. See page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”. See the bottom of page 7 and Fig. 2 for item 100 containing processor 110 yet can have “various embodiments” including as taught on page 8 “in any form”.)
a target value or a control instruction value of control for the vehicle to urgently avoid a collision with an obstacle (see Park page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”. See Fig. 7 for vehicle 11 and vehicle 13 nearing a collision point.); and
a driving control execution unit which is mounted to the vehicle and configured to execute driving control based on the control information received by the first communication device [item 18 in Fig. 1] through the second communication device [item 74 in Fig. 1] (in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0050 for the “driving control execution unit” being any of ECUs 23-25, as shown in Fig. 1. With that in mind, see Park page 7 for the collision avoidance path generated by the vehicle collision avoidance path generation apparatus 100 being sent to the vehicle and its “control module that controls the operation of the vehicle”. The avoidance path is then sent to the “vehicle’s control module, so that the vehicle receives the control signal and control the operation (e.g., throttling control and steering control)”.); 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 see page 11 for “adjusting the speed of the vehicle as shown in fig. 7”.).
Yet Park does not further teach:
a second communication device provided to a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area; and
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking
Yet Ohlarik teaches:
a second communication device provided to a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area (see Figure 1 of this detailed action, attached below, which is Fig. 7 of Ohalrik, for the MEC Device 145 being disposed in each traffic control area, such as the intersection shown. The MEC Device 145 is in communication with the surrounding traffic agents such as the vehicle and pedestrian’s device as shown in Fig. 7 and described at the end of paragraph 0027. The MEC Device 145 in Ohlarik is analogous to the apparatus 100 in Park. See Ohlarik paragraph 0017 for the system disclosed tracking traffic agents “in many areas”.).
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, to add the additional features of a second communication device provided to a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area, as taught by Ohlarik. The motivation for doing so would be to promote collision avoidance in a low latency way, as recognized by Ohlarik (see paragraphs 0017 and 0025).
This conclusion of obviousness 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.
In summary, Ohlarik, especially in Fig. 6, teaches tracking traffic actors in an area, predicting future trajectories, determining a likelihood of collision, and then sending alerts to traffic agents when necessary. This is but a step away from teaching actually commanding the vehicles to stop. Park teaches the last step of actually commanding the vehicles to stop. Probably either reference could have been the primary reference.
Yet Park and Ohlarik do not further teach:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking
However, Morotomi teaches:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
875
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – Fig. 7 of Ohlarik (US2021/0312811 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches:
A driving control apparatus for vehicles, the driving control apparatus comprising (see Park, Fig. 1.):
a road traffic detection information acquisition unit configured to acquire first road traffic detection information (in the present published disclosure, Oyama et al. (US2024/0067210 A1), see paragraph 0042 for the teaching that the acceleration sensor 14, the speed sensor 15, the gyro sensor 16, the GNSS receiver 17, can all be examples of the a first road traffic detection information acquisition unit. Note that the phrase “provided to a movable object” will be interpreted to mean: mounted on. This interpretation is supported by Fig. 1 which has all the items 14-17 just discussed incorporated into item 10. Fig. 2 shows that item 10 is mounted on each vehicle.
With that in mind, see Park, the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of the attached English translation for a system that obtains the location data, which is essentially GNSS data, of a plurality of vehicles. This means the vehicles have a GPS sensor. See page 7 for the “user terminal 200” which is part of “an infotainment system of a vehicle equipped with a sensor (e.g., a GPS sensor)”. Thus, in Park, the user terminal 200 is part of each of the plurality of vehicles. Note that this clause of the claim uses the term “movable object” while later clauses recite “a vehicle”.);
a traffic control apparatus configured to detect an obstacle having a high possibility of a collision with a vehicle in a forward area of a traveling path of the vehicle based on the received first road traffic detection information (In the present disclosure, see paragraph 0062 and Fig. 2 for the traffic control apparatus 70 being in a traffic control area. With that in mind, see Park page 7 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 being connected to the user terminal 200 “through the network 400”. See page 7 for the apparatus 100 having “a network interface or (communication interface) not shown”.), and
a communication device configured to (see Park page 7 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 being connected to the user terminal 200 “through the network 400”. This leaves no doubt that item 100 of Park has what the present claim calls a communication device. See page 7 for the apparatus 100 having “a network interface or (communication interface) not shown”.)
transmit the first road traffic detection information to [[a]] the traffic control apparatus disposed (note that here and elsewhere the examiner has double struck through a phrase in order to more clearly show what he is arguing Park does and does not teach in order to provide a clear detailed action in the interest of compact prosecution. See page 7 for the user terminal 200 being “connected” to the collision avoidance path generation device 100 “through the network 400”. See Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 obtaining location information from each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles.) and
to receive control information computed in the traffic control apparatus so as to include at least a target value or a control instruction value of control for [[a]]the vehicle to urgently avoid a collision with [[an]] the obstacle (see Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 obtaining location information of each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles, and then using this information to generate an evasion route for the vehicles when necessary. See page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”. See the bottom of page 7 and Fig. 2 for item 100 containing processor 110 yet can have “various embodiments” including as taught on page 8 “in any form”. See Park page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”. See Fig. 7 for vehicle 11 and vehicle 13 nearing a collision point.); and
a driving control execution unit configured to execute driving control based on the control information (see Park page 7 for the collision avoidance path generated by the vehicle collision avoidance path generation apparatus 100 being sent to the vehicle and its “control module that controls the operation of the vehicle”. The avoidance path is then sent to the “vehicle’s control module, so that the vehicle receives the control signal and control the operation (e.g., throttling control and steering control)”.),
whereinthe traffic control apparatus computes, as the control information, a target deceleration for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency braking see page 11 for “adjusting the speed of the vehicle as shown in fig. 7”. See Park page 6 for the collision avoidance path generation device 100 obtaining location information of each of a plurality of vehicles, as well as obtaining the driving paths of each of the vehicles, and then using this information to generate an evasion route for the vehicles when necessary. See page 12 for the “computing device 100 may output a predetermined driving path and a collision avoidance path of a vehicle”. See the bottom of page 7 and Fig. 2 for item 100 containing processor 110 yet can have “various embodiments” including as taught on page 8 “in any form”.), and
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency steering control.
Yet Park does not further teach:
transmit the first road traffic detection information to [[a]] the traffic control apparatus disposed
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency steering control.
However, Ohlarik teaches:
transmit the first road traffic detection information to [[a]] the traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area (see Fig. 7 for the MEC Device 145 being disposed in each traffic control area, such as the intersection shown. The MEC Device 145 is in communication with the surrounding traffic agents such as the vehicle and pedestrian’s device as shown in Fig. 7 and described at the end of paragraph 0027. The MEC Device 145 in Ohlarik is analogous to the apparatus 100 in Park. See Ohlarik paragraph 0017 for the system disclosed tracking traffic agents “in many areas”.).
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, to add the additional features of transmitting the road traffic detection information to a traffic control apparatus disposed in each traffic control area, as taught by Ohlarik. The motivation for doing so would be to promote collision avoidance in a low latency way, as recognized by Ohlarik (see paragraphs 0017 and 0025).
This conclusion of obviousness 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.
In summary, Ohlarik, especially in Fig. 6, teaches tracking traffic actors in an area, predicting future trajectories, determining a likelihood of collision, and then sending alerts to traffic agents when necessary. This is but a step away from teaching actually commanding the vehicles to stop. Park teaches the last step of actually commanding the vehicles to stop.
Yet Park and Ohlarik do not further teach:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle by autonomous emergency steering control.
However, Morotomi teaches:
when the collision of the vehicle with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle 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 having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle is not avoidable by the autonomous emergency braking traffic control apparatus further calculates a target steered angle for the vehicle to avoid the collision with the obstacle having the high possibility of the collision with the vehicle 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.
Regarding claim 5, Park, Ohlarik, and Morotomi teach the driving control system for vehicles according to claim 1.
Park further teaches:
The driving control system for vehicles according to claim 1, wherein
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 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.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Ohlarik in further view of Morotomi in further view of Miyamoto et al. (US2021/0179093 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Park, Ohlarik, and Morotomi teach the driving control system for vehicles according to claim 1.
Yet Park, Ohlarik, and Morotomi do not further teach:
The driving control system for vehicles according to claim 1, wherein
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received by the first communication device through the second communication device over control information related to an improvement in convenience for a driver separately calculated in the vehicle.
However, Miyamoto teaches:
the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received by the first communication device through the second communication device over control information related to an improvement in convenience for a driver separately calculated in the vehicle (in the present disclosure, paragraph 0043 teaches that ECU 22 computes control information for a vehicle 5 (own vehicle) based on the road map information received from the traffic control apparatus 70” and that ECU 22 also “computes control information mainly related to an improvement in convenience for a driver”. Here is seems that “convenience” is related to providing map information. Paragraph 0159 teaches that “convenience” is related to “cruise control”. Paragraph 0164 adds that “driving assist control” is “an improvement in the convenience”. Based on this, the present claim can broadly and reasonably be interpreted to mean in general that a system may command a host vehicle to slam on the brakes or slam on the brakes and swerve to avoid a collision, and that such a command will override (i.e., be prioritized over) a command driving assist system, which could reasonably include cruise control or automatic lane keeping. If an occupant of a vehicle sets the vehicle to cruise at 70 mph but an obstacle is detected, the overall system will prioritize the command to brake over the command to cruise at 70 mph. Or if an occupant is using automatic lane-keeping but then the vehicle determines it needs to swerve out of a lane then the system will override the convenience system of lane-keeping in order to avoid the collision.
With that in mind, see Miyamoto for a system that can detect if an obstacle is in the present traveling lane of the vehicle or not. If the obstacle is not in the present traveling lane, then automatic lane-keeping will keep the host vehicle on an avoidance path. But if the obstacle is in the present traveling lane (or will be) the system will override the automatic lane keeping and swerve. For that in Miyamoto see paragraphs 0089-0092.).
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, Ohlarik, and Morotomi to add the additional features of: the driving control execution unit executes the driving control by prioritizing the control information received by the first communication device through the second communication device over control information related to an improvement in convenience for a driver separately calculated in the vehicle, as taught by Miyamoto. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the chance of a collision, as recognized by Miyamoto (see paragraph 0004).
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.
An et al. (US2017/0221366) teaches at least determining by a server if vehicles will collide.
Choi et al. (KR102725480B1) teaches at least determining by a server if vehicles will collide. See the figure from Choi below.
PNG
media_image2.png
526
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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