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 November 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 15 have been amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 15 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Claim Objection” that the typographical error in original claim 2 has been fixed. The examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objection made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated August 19, 2025.
The applicant argues under the heading “Specification Objection” that the disclosure now has a new title that is indicative of the claimed invention. The examiner agrees and withdraws the title objection made in the last detailed action.
The applicant argues under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112,” that many of the claims have been amended for clarity in response to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection in the last detailed action. The applicant notes in the Remarks that “aspects of the present application are primarily related to ‘speed changes’ prior to the vehicle in the adjacent lanes making the lane change, but in some instances the claims address how the vehicle speed is controlled after the lane change is made (e.g., claim 5, claim 6).” The examiner accepts the amendments as making the claims distinctly claimed and withdraws the 35 USC 112(b) rejection made in the last detailed action.
The applicant argues under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102,” that Rayas (US2015/0100216), of record, does not anticipate current claim 1. In particular, the applicant argues that Rayas, including paragraphs 0036-0038 and Figs. 5a and 5b, do not teach, as current claim 1 (with deleted phrases omitted for clarity) now does:
a lane change predictor that estimates predicted relative positions of one or more other vehicles with respect to the ego vehicle, after a lane change to an ego lane, based on the periphery state and the traveling state,
wherein the one or more other vehicles currently travel on an adjacent lane, which is a lane adjacent to the ego lane where the ego vehicle travels; and ….
wherein the ego lane and the adjacent lane are parallel lanes.
The applicant further argues under the heading “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103,” that Aotani et al. (US2024/0051540) of record does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Rayas.
Regarding whether or not Rayas alone teaches claim 1 as quoted above, the examiner notes that some of the amendments to claim 1 as quoted above were made for clarity while other amendments appear to narrow the claim. Specifically, the phrase “wherein the ego lane and the adjacent lane are parallel lanes,” was not found in any of the original claims. The examiner notes that such a teaching regarding parallel lanes certainly has written description, as shown in at least the present application’s Figs. 5 and 6.
Some figures in Rayas relate to merging scenarios involving on-ramps. This scenario can be seen in Rayas Figs. 6 and 7, which were included in the last detailed action. Yet as a person or ordinary skill in the art would know, there are many cases in which on-ramps have a parallel lanes, even if one of those lanes ultimately ends. Rayas, Fig. 5a appears either show an example of an on-ramp in which the merging lane does not end (i.e., the merging lane adds a lane to the total number of lanes), or an on-ramp in which the merging lane ultimately ends yet is parallel for a quite a while. The on-ramp in Rayas Fig. 5a is initially nearly parallel but not exactly parallel with the lane that the dump truck at the left of the figure is driving in. However the on-ramp lane eventually becomes parallel with the lane the dump truck is in. That can be seen by the fact that there is a vehicle apparently still in the on-ramp lane adjacent to the lane that the dump truck is in. That vehicle is far in front of the dump truck (and in the adjacent lane) and unfortunately largely crossed out by the tail of arrow 66 in the figure. This vehicle, which is in the on-ramp lane, appears to be in front of, yet in the adjacent lane to, a vehicle traveling in front of the dump truck and in the same lane as the dump truck.
So it seems to the examiner that Rayas does teach a system for merging in cases “wherein the ego lane and the adjacent lane are parallel lanes,” as recited in current claim 1. That is why Rayas, paragraph 0004 teaches that “embodiments of the invention provide systems and methods for performing adaptive cruise control to automatically perform longitudinal control of a host vehicle to account for merging vehicles (e.g., entering a highway using an on-ramp initially running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel).” Emphasis added. So in Rayas, the merging vehicle is in a lane “running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel”. For this reason, the examiner respectfully does not find the argument that Rayas and Rayas in view of Aotani, do not teach present claim 1.
Furthermore, many of the figures and/or art cited in the “Additional Art” section of the last detailed action, showed cases in which vehicles in a parallel lane to the host vehicle were seeking to merge into the host vehicle’s lane of travel. Even if the lanes that the merging vehicle were in ultimately end, they can still be parallel lanes during the time that the host vehicle determines to decelerate or accelerate to create a gap for the merging vehicle, for example. In other citations in the “Additional Art” section, disclosures taught parallel lanes that did not ultimately end. The examiner has added another highly relevant disclosure to the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action.
Please see the rejections below.
Claim Objection
Claim 4 recites “whose relative position after the lane change predicted to be…”. It probably should recite “whose relative position after the lane change is predicted to be…”. For examination purposes, that is how it will be interpreted. Appropriate action or explanation is respectfully required.
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 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, 5, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rayas (US2015/0100216).
Regarding claim 1, Rayas discloses:
A vehicle control apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to implement:
an information acquisitor that acquires a periphery state of an ego vehicle, and a traveling state of the ego vehicle (see Fig. 1 for items 16, 18, and 20);
a lane change predictor that estimates predicted relative positions of one or more other vehicles with respect to the ego vehiclstate (see Rayas, Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph 0004, for a system configured to “automatically accelerate or brake a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0037 for a system in which “the ECU 14 [of the host vehicle] determines where the host vehicle 10 will be when the merging vehicle 80 merges with the host vehicle's current driving lane 72.”),
wherein the one or more other vehicles currently travel on an adjacent lane, which is a lane adjacent to the ego lane where the ego vehicle travels (see Fig. 5a and paragraph 0004 which teaches controlling a host vehicle to account for merging vehicles entering a highway, including in cases when the merging vehicles are “running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel.” See also Rayas Figs. 6 and 7. Note that the merging lane in Rayas may not always look exactly like it does in the figure.); and
a vehicle controller that increases a speed of the ego vehicle, when the predicted relative position of the one or more other vehicles predicted to be in back of the ego vehicle (see Rayas, Fig. 5a and 6 and paragraph 0004, for a system configured to “automatically accelerate…a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0036 for the ego vehicle 10 accelerating in situations that look like Fig. 6. See paragraph 0038 for “the host vehicle 10 will be located ahead of the merging vehicle 80” after the merge.),
wherein the ego lane and the adjacent lane are parallel lanes (see Figs. 5a and 6 and and paragraph 0004 which teaches controlling a host vehicle to account for merging vehicles entering a highway, including in cases when the merging vehicles are “running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel.” See also Rayas Figs. 6 and 7. Note that the merging lane in Rayas may not always look exactly like it does in the figure.).
Regarding claim 2, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Rayas further discloses:
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
when the relative position of the other vehicle after the lane change is predicted to be in back of the ego vehicle, and the other vehicle is currently positioned on the adjacent lane in front or on the side of the ego vehicle or a speed of the other vehicle is larger than the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller increases the speed of the ego vehicle (see Rayas, Fig. 5a and 6 and paragraph 0004, for a system configured to “automatically accelerate…a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0036 for the ego vehicle 10 accelerating in situations that look like Fig. 6. See paragraph 0038 for “the host vehicle 10 will be located ahead of the merging vehicle 80” after the merge.).
Regarding claim 5, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Rayas further discloses:
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
when the other vehicle whose relative position after the lane change is in back of the ego vehicle , after increasing the speed of the vehicle before the lane change, returns the speed of the ego vehicle to a state before the increasing (see paragraphs 0002 and 0031 for the vehicle system performing adaptive cruise control (ACC) including automatically controlling the ego vehicle 10’s speed in merging situations. It is inherent in ACC systems that the target speed of a host vehicle is generally maintained except when the vehicle needs to speed up or slow down as described in Rayas.).
Regarding claim 13, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Rayas further discloses:
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller increases the speed of the ego vehicle,
by increasing a target speed of the ego vehicle (see Rayas, 0028 for the engine increasing the torque to reach the target speed.), or
decreasing a target vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and a front vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Rayas discloses:
A vehicle control method comprising:
acquiring a periphery state of an ego vehicle, and a traveling state of the ego vehicle (see Fig. 1 for items 16, 18, and 20);
estimating predictive relative positions of one or more other vehicles with respect to the ego vehicle state (see Rayas, Figs. 6 and 7 and paragraph 0004, for a system configured to “automatically accelerate or brake a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0037 for a system in which “the ECU 14 [of the host vehicle] determines where the host vehicle 10 will be when the merging vehicle 80 merges with the host vehicle's current driving lane 72.”),
wherein the one or more other vehicles currently travel on an adjacent lane, which is a lane adjacent to the ego lane where the ego vehicle travels (see Fig. 5a and paragraph 0004 which teaches controlling a host vehicle to account for merging vehicles entering a highway, including in cases when the merging vehicles are “running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel.” See also Rayas Figs. 6 and 7. Note that the merging lane in Rayas may not always look exactly like it does in the figure.); and
increasing a speed of the ego vehicle, when the predicted relative position of the one morsee Rayas, Fig. 5a and 6 and paragraph 0004, for a system configured to “automatically accelerate…a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0036 for the ego vehicle 10 accelerating in situations that look like Fig. 6. See paragraph 0038 for “the host vehicle 10 will be located ahead of the merging vehicle 80” after the merge.),
wherein the ego lane and the adjacent lane are parallel non-merging lanes (see Figs. 5a and 6 and paragraph 0004 which teaches controlling a host vehicle to account for merging vehicles entering a highway, including in cases when the merging vehicles are “running parallel to the host vehicle’s current lane of travel.” See also Rayas Figs. 6 and 7. Note that the merging lane in Rayas may not always look exactly like it does in the figure.).
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 4, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayas (US2015/0100216 A1) in view of Aotani et al. (US2024/0051540 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Yet Rayas does not further teach:
The vehicle control apparatus, wherein,
when one vehicl predicted to banotheis predicted to b
However, Aotani teaches:
The vehicle control apparatus, wherein,
when one vehicl predicted to banotheis predicted to bsee paragraph 0045 for two options (i) and (ii) depending on the positions of the merging vehicles and the ego vehicle 10. Then see paragraph 0046 for when neither case applies, the host vehicle maintains the status quo, which in the context of the previous paragraph reasonably means that the host vehicle will not accelerate.).
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 Rayas, to add the additional features of: when one vehicle is predicted to be another vehicle whose relative position after the lane change is predicted to be see paragraph 0013).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aotani et al. (US2024/0051540), Figs. 4A and 4B
Regarding claim 7, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Yet Rayas does not further teach:
The vehicle control apparatus, wherein,
when increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller changes a speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, based on at least one of
a current relative position and
a current relative speed with respect to the ego vehicle of the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle.
However, Aotani teaches:
The vehicle control apparatus, wherein,
when increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller changes a speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, based on at least one of
a current relative position (see Figs. 4A and 4B and paragraph 0064 for setting the acceleration of the host vehicle depending on the position of the other vehicles.) and
a current relative speed with respect to the ego vehicle of the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego 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 Rayas, to add the additional features of: when increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller changes a speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, based on a predicted relative position, as taught by Aotani. The motivation for doing so would be to appropriately adjust the positional relationships of the vehicles involved in a merge, as recognized by Aotani (see paragraph 0013).
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.
Regarding claim 14, Rayas discloses the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1.
Rayas further discloses:
The vehicle control apparatus, wherein,
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle when a preceding vehicle which needs to avoid a collision does not exist on the ego lane in front of the ego vehicle and the speed of the ego vehicle is controlled so as to approach the target speed, the vehicle controller
increases the speed of the ego vehicle, by increasing the target speed.
Yet Rayas does not further teach:
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle when a preceding vehicle exists on the ego lane in front of the ego vehicle and a vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle is controlled, the vehicle controller
increases the speed of the ego vehicle, by decreasing the target vehicle distance (in the present published disclosure, Uno (US2024/0239345 A1), the term “target speed,” as shown in paragraph 0070, is not used to refer to the target speed set for the ACC. That is how the term target speed is sometimes used in the art, which is why the examiner makes this clarification. Rather, target speed in the present disclosure means the currently commanded speed of the closed loop control system. With that in mind, see Rayas, 0028 for the engine increasing the torque to reach the target speed.).
However, Aotani teaches:
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle when a preceding vehicle exists on the ego lane in front of the ego vehicle and a vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle is controlled, the vehicle controller
increases the speed of the ego vehicle, by decreasing the target vehicle distance (see Figs. 4A and 4B and paragraph 0064 for adjusting the spacing between the vehicles.).
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 Rayas, to add the additional features of: in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle when a preceding vehicle exists on the ego lane in front of the ego vehicle and a vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the preceding vehicle is controlled, the vehicle controller increases the speed of the ego vehicle, by decreasing the target vehicle distance, as taught by Aotani. The motivation for doing so would be to appropriately adjust the positional relationships of the vehicles involved in a merge, as recognized by Aotani (see paragraph 0013).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 8-12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recite the following:
6. (currently amended):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
after starting an increase in the speed of the ego vehicle, when the predicted relative position after the lane change of the other vehicle whose relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle changes to in front of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller returns the speed of the ego vehicle to a state before the increasing.
8. (currently amended):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 7, wherein,
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, when the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle is currently positioned on the adjacent lane in front or on side of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller
increases the speed increase amounwhen the current relative position of the other vehicle with respect to the ego vehicle is moving away from the ego vehicle in front direction, and
increases the speed increase amount, as the current relative speed of the other vehicle with respect to the ego vehicle increases; and
when the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle is currently positioned on the adjacent lane in back of the ego vehicle, and the current speed of the other vehicle is larger than the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller
increases the speed increase amount as the current relative position of the other vehicle with respect to the ego vehicle approach approaches the ego vehicle, and
increases the speed increase amount, as the current relative speed of the other vehicle with respect to the ego vehicle increases.
9. (currently amended):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller changes a speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, based on a time to collision between the ego vehicle and the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change is in back of the ego vehicle.
10. (currently amended):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 9, wherein,
in a case of increasing the speed of the ego vehicle, when the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle is currently positioned on the adjacent lane in front or on side of the ego vehicle, and the speed of the other vehicle is smaller than the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller
increases the speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, as the time to collision increases; and
when the other vehicle whose predicted relative position after the lane change was estimated to be in back of the ego vehicle is currently positioned on the adjacent lane in back of the ego vehicle, and the speed of the other vehicle is larger than the speed of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller
increases the speed increase amount, as the time to collision decreases.
Claim 10 is allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 7 upon which it is dependent.
11. (currently amended):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein,
the lane change predictor estimates a plurality of the predicted relative positions of the other vehicle after the lane change to the ego lane, and a probability or a priority of each of the plurality of predicted relative positions after the lane change, and when the relative predicted position after the lane change whose probability or priority is highest is in back of the ego vehicle, the vehicle controller
increases the speed of the ego vehicle, and
changes a speed increase amount of the ego vehicle, based on the highest probability or priority.
12. (original):
The vehicle control apparatus according to claim 11, wherein,
the vehicle controller decreases the speed increase amount, as the highest probability or priority decreases.
Claim 12 is allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 11 upon which it is dependent.
Foster et al. (US2022/0348227), teaches in paragraph 1608, a system in which the host vehicle “may decelerate at a rate” to ensure another vehicle can cut in in front of the host vehicle. This contrasts with claim 9, which discusses a vehicle merging “in back of the ego vehicle.” Foster paragraph 0535 teaches a “target back vehicle” that is “expected to be behind [the host] autonomous vehicle” though this is after the host vehicle changes lanes. Paragraph 0549 teaches that the host vehicle may “avoid planning to decelerate more than a pre-determined rate,” yet this is not in the specific conditions mentioned in the present claims.
Rayas (US2015/0100216 A1) teaches in Fig. 7 attached below and paragraph 0004 a system configured to “automatically accelerate or brake a host vehicle based on the relative speed of the merging vehicle to automatically allow the merging vehicle to enter the host vehicle's current lane of travel.” See paragraph 0037 for a system in which “the ECU 14 [of the host vehicle] determines where the host vehicle 10 will be when the merging vehicle 80 merges with the host vehicle's current driving lane 72.”
PNG
media_image2.png
380
252
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aotani et al. (US2024/0051540 A1) teaches in Fig. 4A and 4B attached below, a system in which the ego vehicle 10 accelerates such that it leaves space d1 and d2 between the positions of first vehicle 410 and second vehicle 420 respectively. Paragraph 0055 teaches that the “vehicle control unit 34” of ego vehicle 10 can adjust its position by accelerating or decelerating so that it gets into a position “before the first vehicle reaches the reference position.” This reference position is rp, according to paragraph 0057. See paragraph 0044 for the host vehicle allowing the merging vehicle, which is called the “target vehicle,” to merge “when a predetermined position is set”. In Aotani is not clear that the host vehicle predicts that the target vehicle will merge nor that the host vehicle predicts where the target vehicle will end up after the merge. The fact that the target vehicle will merge is known because of the lane configuration, as shown in Fig. 4A. It may be that the ending distances between the vehicles after the merge as the same as those shown in Fig. 4A, but with all the vehicles in the same lane. Yet that is not stated explicitly. See paragraph 0045 for determining whether to allow the target vehicle 10 to precede the vehicle 10 based on the relative speed and positional relationship. If the relative speed of the merging vehicle is faster than the ego vehicle 10, the target vehicle will precede the ego vehicle 10. But if the opposite is true, the target vehicle will get behind the ego vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mizoguchi (US2023/0306851 A1) teaches in Figs. 1-3 attached below, and paragraph 0050, a host vehicle 1 with control system 10. See paragraph 0039 for the host vehicle “slowing down, to keep an inter-vehicle distance corresponding to an own vehicle speed”. See paragraph 0138 for the vehicle 1 and its ECU 44 causing the vehicle 1 to travel in the lane L1 “while accelerating” to allow the vehicle 3 to merge from lane L2 to lane L1 “behind the vehicle 1”. This is not shown in the figures, but is taught in the specification. See Fig. 1 for a path that vehicle 2 travels. See paragraph 0109 for using sensors, including outside cameras 26, to “acquire” such data. Paragraph 0144 also teaches exchanging vehicle information via V2V. See paragraph 0188 for the host vehicle acquiring “traveling control information, e.g., a traveling control value, for vehicle 1”. Paragraph 0085 teaches that the ECU 44 can “determine the presence or absence of the other vehicle 2 traveling on the merging origin lane L2”. Paragraph 0087 implies that the ECU 44 can check whether “the control target” can fit in based on the position of the host vehicle. Paragraph 0088 further teaches that ECU 44 can use the dimensions of the “other vehicle 2” to determine “whether merging control is possible”. It is not exceptionally explicit but the teaching in Mizoguchi is that the system predicts where the adjacent vehicle will be once it changes lanes and that this information is used by host vehicle 1 to speed up or slow down to allow for the lane change.
PNG
media_image3.png
912
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Okamoto (US2014/0316671) teaches in Fig. 21 and paragraph 0286 that a vehicle CM7 wants to join a platoon. In other words, it wants to cut-in. See paragraph 0288 for vehicle CM4 (which can be considered the ego vehicle) determining that “join position 200” ahead of CM4 is the space that CM7 will cut in at. This is based on the platoon vehicles monitoring of “a front of the self-vehicle and “platoon information retained in the self-vehicle” and “acquired from the…vehicle CM7.” See paragraph 0289 for vehicle CM4 reducing its speed to generate space 210 as shown in Fig. 21 attached below. See paragraph 0283 for the vehicles behind space 210 at first decelerating to create a space than accelerating again to reach their “pre-deceleration speed.” But Okamoto does not teach that vehicle CM3 accelerates to let CM7 merge behind it, which is much of what present claim 1 teaches.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ward (U.S. 11,840,234). Ward teaches that an ego vehicle may use its sensors and map data to determine the “merge intentions” of other vehicles. Ward teaches that adjacent vehicles can have a “go” or “yield” merge intention. This is referring to what that vehicle wants to do. “For example, if the ego vehicle detects a first vehicle slightly behind the ego vehicle is in a go profile while a second vehicle further behind the ego vehicle is in a yield react profile, the ego vehicle may decide to merge between the first and second vehicles.” In other words, the “first vehicle” is indicating that it wants to “go,” i.e., go first. The “second vehicle” is indicating that it will “yield” and all the ego vehicle in. Thus the ego vehicle will merge between these two vehicles. In the present disclosure, however, it is the adjacent vehicles that merge into the ego vehicle’s lane.
Emura et al. (US2018/0093676 A1). Fig. 2A of Emura shows an ego vehicle 1. The ego vehicle notes that an adjacent vehicle needs to merge. So the ego vehicle provides choices to the occupant of the ego vehicle, such as accelerate or decelerate, as shown in Fig. 2B. Paragraph 0364 teaches that the ego vehicle can gather information about “an adjacent vehicle traveling behind the host vehicle in the adjacent lane” and information about “an adjacent vehicle traveling in front of the host vehicle in the adjacent lane”.
Tanaka (US2023/0159035 A1) teaches in paragraph 0005 a system in which a “host vehicle” travels in a first lane along with a “first preceding vehicle” traveling in front of the host vehicle. “An adjacent vehicle” also travels “in a second lane adjacent to the first lane”. The system is configured for “estimating that the adjacent vehicle is likely to change lanes into the first lane”. See Fig. 10A and paragraph 0184 for a host vehicle detecting that an adjacent vehicle 4 is about to change lanes. Yet Tanaka does not appear to teach that the host vehicle will slow down or speed up to accommodate the merging adjacent vehicle. Primarily, Tanaka is interested in predicting if the adjacent vehicle will change lanes.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Foster et al. (US2022/0348227), a TuSimple disclosure. Foster, beginning in paragraph 1605, extensively discusses “accepting cutting-in [vehicle(s)].” Paragraph 1608, teaches that the host vehicle “may decelerate” to create a “gap” from the front of the host vehicle to the rear of the cutting-in vehicle. The host vehicle may then “Restore the Minimum Gap.” The host vehicle can use turn signal recognition to predict the cut-in, according to paragraph 1612. The system taught by Foster works in cases such as “on-ramp merge scenarios” and “lane ending merge scenarios,” as taught in paragraph 1627, but also in cases in which “there are vehicles in every lane,” which the examiner reasonably interprets as being cases in which vehicles are changing lanes across parallel lanes. According to Foster, the host vehicle can yield, maintain its speed, or negotiate a gap, according to paragraphs 1638-1646.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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