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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on August 6, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799) in view of Malhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0320869).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799) in view of Malhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0320869), further in view of Ghafarianzadeh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0307563).
Response to Argument
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on August 6, 2025, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799).
Regarding claim 1, Da Silva discloses an apparatus for controlling traveling of vehicles in a roundabout, the apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive classification information on a roundabout which a first traveling vehicle approaches and surrounding environment information; (Da Silva ¶ 46 “The computer 140 is moreover connected to an external memory 142 that stores a road map,” wherein the road map includes “features of roundabouts (geometry and/or number of traffic lanes [i.e., classification information] ... are provided,” such that when a vehicle “enters [i.e., approaches] a roundabout, it has to choose one of the traffic lanes 210, 220, 230 to enter the roundabout,” see ¶ 59, the vehicle driving autonomously using the equipped sensors to “locate itself in its surroundings [i.e., surrounding environment information],” see ¶ 38. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the computer is connected to the memory storing a road map thereby receiving the road map having the number of traffic lanes for the roundabout.)
a memory configured to store a vehicle traveling control program for the roundabout; and (Da Silva ¶ 47 discloses “The internal memory of the computer 140 for its part stores a computer application, consisting of computer programs comprising instructions,” including “a sequence of instructions, determined for example from the geolocation system 141, allows the motor vehicle 100 to travel to the desired destination,” see ¶ 65)
the classification information comprising a type of the roundabout determined from different types of the roundabout; (Da Silva ¶ 76 discloses “the computer 140 uses the features regarding the geography of the locations, in particular to determine the number of lanes on the roundabout,” such that “If the roundabout comprises just one traffic lane (as is the case in FIG. 2), the vehicle necessarily has to take this in order to cross the roundabout 1 (step E20),” see ¶ 77, or “If the roundabout has two traffic lanes (FIGS. 3, 5 and 6), the method continues in step E40,” see ¶ 78, or “the method continues in step E80 (step corresponding to identifying a roundabout with more than two traffic lanes,” see ¶ 104. A one-lane roundabout and a two-lane roundabout as disclosed by Da Silva are types of roundabouts which is consistent with the definition for classification information provided in ¶ 58 of the instant specification.)
a processor configured to execute the program (Da Silva ¶ 44) to: assign different weights to the different types of the roundabout; (Da Silva ¶ 123 includes Equation 1 for calculating weighting data for artificial preference toward outermost lanes, which includes the number of traffic lanes on the roundabout, denoted as n(j). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changing the number of lanes would change the value of the denominator in the equation and thus different weighting data would be assigned per type of roundabout.)
determine a weight of the determined type of the roundabout; (Da Silva ¶ 122 discloses that “the computer 140 also determines a second item of data Rj->i,” also see Equation 1 and corresponding ¶¶ 123-125)
calculate a collision risk of the first traveling vehicle based on the determined weight for the determined type of the roundabout; (Da Silva ¶ 9 discloses “selecting a traffic lane of a roundabout that takes into account the presence of other vehicles on the roundabout, and therefore potential risks of collision with these other vehicles,” such that “after the selection step, provision is made for a step of determining [i.e., calculating] the possibility or the [collision] risk for the motor vehicle to change traffic lane in order to move toward the selected traffic lane,” see ¶ 16)
determine a traveling negotiation target among at least one of a second traveling vehicle traveling near or within the roundabout or a vulnerable road user (VRU) adjacent to the roundabout according to the type of the roundabout included in the classification information, the surrounding environment information, and route information on the traveling vehicle, (Da Silva ¶¶ 70 and 95 discloses for “ If the roundabout has two traffic lanes (FIGS. 3, 5 and 6) [i.e., according to the classification information],” calculating an inequality, such that “If this inequality is satisfied (the case in FIG. 5), there is no risk in changing traffic lane [i.e., traveling negotiation target], and the motor vehicle 100 moves toward the outer traffic lane 260 (step E62). When it reaches the desired exit 40, the motor vehicle 100 exits the roundabout by taking this desired exit 40 (step E64)
perform a traveling negotiation with at least one of the second traveling vehicle or the VRU to determine a traveling negotiation result, and (Da Silva ¶ 96 “If this inequality is not satisfied (this meaning that there would be a risk in changing lane as shown in FIG. 6 with the other vehicle 330 being present [i.e., surrounding environment information]), the motor vehicle 100 remains in its traffic lane 210 [i.e., perform a traveling negotiation])
control a traveling behavior of the vehicle in the roundabout according to the determined traveling negotiation result and the calculated collision risk. (Da Silva ¶ 43 discloses using computer 140 to “process the information provided by these various components and to be able to develop a control instruction for the drivetrain,” wherein the processed information includes features of the roundabout including a number of lanes, see ¶ 46, and the determined risk for changing lanes, see ¶ 89, the risk being a calculated collision risk, see ¶¶ 9 and 16)
Regarding claim 2, Da Silva discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the receiver is configured to recognize the classification information on the roundabout using at least one of communication information with a road side unit (RSU), map information, or camera recognition information. (Da Silva in at least ¶ 46 “The computer 140 is moreover connected to an external memory 142 that stores a road map [i.e., map information]. It will be considered here that this is a detailed map in which the features of roundabouts (geometry and/or number of traffic lanes [i.e., recognizing classification information] ... are provided,” such that “the computer 140 uses the features regarding the geography of the locations, in particular to determine the number of lanes on the roundabout,” see ¶ 76)
Regarding claim 4, Da Silva discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the processor is configured to determine an entering lane for the roundabout using the classification information on the roundabout and the route information, and (Da Silva ¶¶ 78 and 83 discloses determining that if a roundabout has two traffic lanes, “the computer 140 indicates, in step E52, the instruction consisting in taking the innermost traffic lane 270 of the roundabout. The motor vehicle 100 therefore enters the roundabout by situating itself on this inner traffic lane 270.”)
transmit a traveling command signal to travel in the corresponding entering lane. (Da Silva ¶ 48 “the computer 140 is able to transmit instructions to the various units of the vehicle,” the instruction consisting in taking the innermost traffic lane 270 of the roundabout, see ¶ 83.)
Regarding claim 7, Da Silva discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the processor (Da Silva ¶ 44) is configured to: control the traveling behavior using the surrounding environment information on a congestion situation in the roundabout, and (Da Silva ¶ 91 discloses that “if another vehicle already traveling on this outer traffic lane 260 is present [i.e., a congestion situation], the computer 140 calculates the arrival time t.sub.OBJ that will be necessary for this other vehicle to reach this location 221,” and controlling the vehicle based on the risk of changing lanes, see at least ¶¶ 95-96)
control the traveling behavior for entering the roundabout by performing a traveling negotiation with another vehicle with a collision risk that is equal to or greater than a predetermined value or receiving a traveling negotiation coordination result of the RSU, depending on whether another vehicle has the V2X communication function. (Da Silva ¶¶ 93 and 96 discloses an inequality based on a “predetermined safety margin,” such that “If this inequality is not satisfied (this meaning that there would be a risk in changing lane as shown in FIG. 6 with the other vehicle 330 being present), the motor vehicle 100 remains in its traffic lane 210, in this case the inner traffic lane 270 of the roundabout, and the method returns to step E56.”)
Regarding claim 9, Da Silva discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the different types of the roundabout comprise a micro roundabout, a small roundabout, a one-lane roundabout, a two-lane roundabout, a spiral roundabout, a planar roundabout, and a three-dimensional roundabout. (Da Silva Fig. 2-4 depict at least a one-lane roundabout and a two-lane roundabout)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799) in view of Malhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0320869).
Regarding claim 5, Da Silva does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
in consideration of the surrounding environment information on the VRU in a crosswalk area placed in a direction in which the first traveling vehicle exits from the roundabout, the processor is configured to perform the traveling negotiation with a communication device of the VRU to control the traveling behavior of the first traveling vehicle for passing the crosswalk.
However, Malhan discloses:
in consideration of the surrounding environment information on the VRU in a crosswalk area placed in a direction in which the first traveling vehicle exits from the roundabout, the processor is configured to perform the traveling negotiation with a communication device of the VRU to control the traveling behavior of the first traveling vehicle for passing the crosswalk. (Malhan ¶ 38 discloses performing lane change assist for avoiding collision with an object [i.e., traveling negotiation], the object including a pedestrian [i.e., a VRU], see ¶ 22, and the roundabout characteristics including having “one or more lanes, pedestrian cross-walks/islands, and bicycle lanes, among other characteristics,” see ¶ 23. See communication device 202 depicted in Fig. 3 which is consistent with the communication device 1020 of the instant application. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a detected pedestrian would be on a cross-walk.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the intersection of Da Silva with information on a VRU in a crosswalk area as disclosed by Malhan with reasonable expectation of success to improve traffic flow, efficiency, and safety by regulating the entry of vehicles through the un-signalized intersection by real-time analysis of dynamic characteristics of moving objects about the intersection (Malhan ¶ 21), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Da Silva does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
in response to recognizing a VRU waiting to cross a crosswalk near the roundabout, the processor is configured to send a notification message to a third travelling vehicle travelling adjacent to the first traveling vehicle and likely to exit from the roundabout, and
control the travelling behavior of the first travelling vehicle to inform or represent to the third travelling vehicle that the VRU is crossing the crosswalk, in response to not receiving an acknowledgment of the notification message from the third travelling vehicle.
However, Malhan discloses:
in response to recognizing a VRU waiting to cross a crosswalk near the roundabout, the processor is configured to send a notification message to a third travelling vehicle travelling adjacent to the first traveling vehicle and likely to exit from the roundabout, and (Malhan ¶ 23 discloses “the roundabout 102 includes an intersection control system 110 for determining or mapping dynamic traffic flow about the roundabout 102” for vehicles 104, which include at least a first, second, and third vehicle " vehicles 104-4 to 104-6 (“vehicles 104”, collectively),” see Fig. 1)
control the travelling behavior of the first travelling vehicle to inform or represent to the third travelling vehicle that the VRU is crossing the crosswalk, in response to not receiving an acknowledgment of the notification message from the third travelling vehicle. (Malhan ¶ 67 discloses “the intersection control system further includes a communication device configured to exchange signals with an external device, and the communication device receives the data indicative of characteristics of the moving object from the external device,” and calculating a recommended time for the vehicle to enter the intersection based on the characteristics, such that vehicles that are “not connected [i.e., not receiving an acknowledgement of a message] are provided an entry parameter,” also see ¶ 42, and moving the vehicle 200 to provide collision avoidance, see ¶ 38)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the intersection of Da Silva with information on a VRU in a crosswalk area and controlling the travelling behavior of the first travelling vehicle to inform or represent to the third travelling vehicle that the VRU is crossing the crosswalk, as disclosed by Malhan, with reasonable expectation of success, because acquiring data of the VRU would improve the accuracy of the future dynamic characteristics of the moving object (Malhan ¶ 50), and improve traffic flow, efficiency, and safety by regulating the entry of vehicles through the un-signalized intersection by real-time analysis of dynamic characteristics of moving objects about the intersection (Malhan ¶ 21), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0161799) in view of Malhan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0320869), further in view of Ghafarianzadeh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0307563).
Regarding claim 6, Da Silva in combination with Malhan does not expressly disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein:
the processor is configured to control the traveling behavior of the first traveling vehicle using a traveling negotiation result determined according to a congestion level in the crosswalk.
However, Ghafarianzadeh discloses:
the processor (Ghafarianzadeh ¶ 116) is configured to control the traveling behavior of the first traveling vehicle using a traveling negotiation result determined according to a congestion level in the crosswalk. (Ghafarianzadeh ¶ 22 discloses that “an autonomous vehicle, can be controlled to traverse an environment based at least in part on the predicted locations of the pedestrian(s),” including “a pedestrian is on a sidewalk proximate to a crosswalk [i.e., waiting to cross],” see ¶ 16, also see ¶ 19 “a pedestrian crosswalk flux (e.g., a number of pedestrians travelling through the crosswalk (e.g., across the drivable area) over a period of time).” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any number of pedestrians at the crosswalk indicates a level of congestion of the crosswalk area (e.g., a low level of congestion or a high level of congestion.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the controlling the traveling behavior of Ghafarianzadeh in place of the traffic control of Da Silva, with reasonable expectation of success, because the substitution would result in the traffic control of Da Silva directing traffic according to a congestion level of the object waiting to cross or crossing the crosswalk area.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Da Silva and Malhan to incorporate a congestion level of an object at a crosswalk area, as disclosed by Ghafarianzadeh, with reasonable expectation of success, to allow an autonomous vehicle to alter a trajectory (e.g., change lanes, stop, etc.) in order to safely traverse the environment (Ghafarianzadeh ¶ 29), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662