DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 9/08/2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/08/2025 have been fully considered but are considered moot because the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined 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 (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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,248,834 B1; hereinafter Ferguson) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0189581 A1; hereinafter Yang) and Meinhart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0349168 A1; hereinafter Meinhart).
Regarding claim 1, Ferguson discloses:
A driver assistance device (computing device 110, see at least Fig. 1), comprising: a recognition sensor including a camera that captures an image of another vehicle on a road (vehicle may detect objects and environment using sensors such as cameras, see at least col. 4 lines 22-29) having two or more lanes intersecting with a traveling lane of a subject vehicle (see at least Figs. 3 and 5-8), and configured to recognize a situation around the subject vehicle (contextual information may be generated using vehicle’s computer based on detected object and environmental information, see at least col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 16); and
execute a driver assistance process according to a result of the prediction (using likelihood values of all the trajectories, computer determines a trajectory for the vehicle to avoid the object and to reduce traffic accidents, see at least col. 5 lines 40-52; vehicle is maneuvered in order to avoid final future trajectory of object, see at least col. 19 lines 10-12)
Ferguson does not explicitly disclose:
a processor configured to determine a lane change probability of the another vehicle, based on other-vehicle traveling information which is traveling information of the another vehicle detected by the recognition sensor
determine whether the lane change probability is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold;
upon determination that the lane change probability is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, execute a driver assistance process according to a result of the prediction to control one or more actuators configured to control at least one of driving and braking of the subject vehicle to reduce forward movement of the subject vehicle; and
upon determination that the lane change probability is not greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, notify a driver of the subject vehicle for avoiding a collision with the another vehicle
However, Yang teaches:
a processor configured to determine a lane change probability of the another vehicle (based on observations of driving environment, predicting whether another vehicle in the driving environment will execute a lane change, see at least [0004]; ascertain probability that other vehicle will change lanes, see at least [0007]), based on other-vehicle traveling information which is traveling information of the another vehicle detected by the recognition sensor (observations from driving environment of vehicle may be picked up by sensors, see at least [0044])
determine whether the lane change probability is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold (check whether overall probability exceeds a predetermined threshold value, see at least [0056])
upon determination that the lane change probability is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, execute a driver assistance process according to a result of the prediction to control one or more actuators configured to control at least one of driving and braking of the subject vehicle to reduce forward movement of the subject vehicle (if overall probability exceeds predetermine threshold value and anticipated trajectory of other vehicle intersects planned trajectory of ego vehicle, activate brake system, see at least [0024]);
Ferguson further discloses determining whether a vehicle is in a specific lane such as a turn only-lane in the determination of vehicle’s future trajectory (see at least col. 4 lines 38-56) or determining the use of a turn signal (see at least col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trajectory prediction based on contextual information disclosed by Ferguson by adding the lane change prediction taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid a collision” by determining whether the predicted trajectories will intersect (see [0056]).
Furthermore, Meinhart teaches:
upon determination that the probability is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, execute a driver assistance process according to a result of the prediction to control one or more actuators configured to control at least one of driving and braking of the subject vehicle to reduce forward movement of the subject vehicle (threat number is indicating probability of collision between target and host vehicle, see at least [0006]; if threat number is above a threat number threshold, computing device can actuate a vehicle brake subsystem to avoid a collision, see at least [0023])
upon determination that the probability is not greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, notify a driver of the subject vehicle for avoiding a collision with the another vehicle (if threat number is below threat number threshold but above second threat number threshold, computing device 105 can prompt operator to keep host vehicle at standstill using a notification, see at least [0026]; activate driver alert module to alert the driver that it is unsafe to turn into the nearest lane by providing a visual/audible alert, see at least [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trajectory prediction based on contextual information disclosed by Ferguson and the lane change prediction taught by Yang by adding the notification taught by Meinhart with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for cases where “probability of a collision can warrant prompting the operator of the probability of the collision but not warrant applying a brake hold to prevent movement of the host vehicle” (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ferguson, Yang, and Meinhart teaches the elements above and Ferguson further discloses:
the other-vehicle traveling information includes information indicating whether or not a turn signal of the another vehicle is blinking (perception system may detect a turn signal, see at least col. 10 lines 26-28)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ferguson, Yang, and Meinhart teaches the elements above and Ferguson further discloses:
the other-vehicle traveling information includes information indicating a distance of the another vehicle to a lane division line closer to the subject vehicle among lane division lines that define a traveling lane of the another vehicle (“if the vehicle 580 changes heading and moves closer to the double-line 514, the one or more computing devices may determine that there is a greater likelihood of the vehicle 580 making a left turn and thus, the likelihood value for future trajectory 730 may be increased” see at least col. 14 lines 1-6)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ferguson, Yang, and Meinhart teaches the elements above but Ferguson and Yang do not teach:
a human machine interface (HMI) device configured to perform notification to a driver of the subject vehicle upon determination that the lane change probability is not greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold
However, Meinhart teaches:
a human machine interface (HMI) device configured to perform notification to a driver of the subject vehicle upon determination that the lane change probability is not greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (human-machine interface (HMI) can be used to provide notification to the operator, see at least [0026])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trajectory prediction based on contextual information disclosed by Ferguson and the lane change prediction taught by Yang by adding the HMI taught by Meinhart with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “ prompt the operator to keep the host vehicle... at the standstill” to avoid a collision (see [0026]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Yang and Meinhart as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Graham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130753 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ferguson, Yang, and Meinhart teaches the elements above and Ferguson further discloses:
processor is further configured to execute the driver assistance process (vehicle is maneuvered in order to avoid final future trajectory of object, see at least col. 19 lines 10-12)
Ferguson does not disclose:
a low vehicle speed condition in which a speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or lower than a designated speed, processor is further configured to determine the lane change probability of the another vehicle and execute the driver assistance process upon determination that the lane change probability is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold
However, Yang teaches:
processor is further configured to determine the lane change probability of the another vehicle (based on observations of driving environment, predicting whether another vehicle in the driving environment will execute a lane change, see at least [0004]; ascertain probability that other vehicle will change lanes, see at least [0007]) and execute the driver assistance process upon determination that the lane change probability is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold (if overall probability exceeds predetermine threshold value and anticipated trajectory of other vehicle intersects planned trajectory of ego vehicle, activate brake system, see at least [0024]);
Ferguson further discloses determining whether a vehicle is in a specific lane such as a turn only-lane in the determination of vehicle’s future trajectory (see at least col. 4 lines 38-56) or determining the use of a turn signal (see at least col. 4 line 66 – col. 5 line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trajectory prediction based on contextual information disclosed by Ferguson by adding the lane change prediction taught by Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to avoid a collision” by determining whether the predicted trajectories will intersect (see [0056]).
Furthermore, Graham teaches:
in a low vehicle speed condition in which a speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or lower than a designated speed, processor is further configured to determine the lane change probability of the another vehicle (primary vehicle stops in the crossing lane at the intersection, see at least [0018]; determine path prediction of remote vehicle, see at least [0020]) *Examiner sets forth being stopped at an intersection or a speed of 0 is lower than a speed of moving
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trajectory prediction based on contextual information disclosed by Ferguson, the lane change prediction taught by Yang, and the notification taught by Meinhart by adding the stop taught by Graham with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “alerting the driver if it is unsafe to turn into the nearest lane, thereby allowing a driver to safely turn into the nearest lane” (see [0005]). Furthermore, it is well known to stop before an intersection as shown in Graham Figure 2A-2C in order to observe a surrounding before proceeding.
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662