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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Based on the amendments to the claims, the previous anticipatory rejection is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miike (US20220250623A1) in view of Mudalige (US20130099911A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miike teaches;
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller (taught as a merging support device, element 32, coupling to various control units to control vehicle functions as shown in Fig 1) configured to perform:
obtaining information about travel of a first vehicle using a plurality of sensors mounted in the first vehicle (taught as a GPS, paragraph 0046, and other sensors including vehicle speed sensor for detecting the vehicle speed, accelerator pedal opening degree sensor, brake operation amount sensor etc. paragraph 0050);
obtaining information about travel of a second vehicle (taught as, for example, an image capture device, element 36 to capture external images outside the vehicle, paragraph 0043, and a distance detection sensor that acquires distances from the vehicle to objects around the vehicle, paragraph 0050);
outputting a command causing an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) in the first vehicle to perform the give-way action (taught as the control unit determining that it is necessary to cause the first vehicle to decelerate [effectively yielding/giving way to a second, merging vehicle], paragraph 0176), in response to determining, based on the information about the travel of the first vehicle and the information about the travel of the second vehicle, that predetermined conditions for the first vehicle to give way to the second vehicle are satisfied (taught as determining, for example, a first arrival time of the first vehicle and a second arrival time of the second vehicle, paragraph 0163, and based on the comparison and other features, determine whether the first vehicle should decelerate, paragraph 0176),
wherein outputting the command comprises causing a brake of the first vehicle to engage without action by a driver of the first vehicle (taught as generating a brake operation signal to the first vehicle, paragraph 0179, wherein the control of the first vehicle is effected automatically, paragraph 0218, and further suggested in automatically carrying out speed adjustment of the vehicle, paragraph 0022) and without receiving a request from the second vehicle to give way (indicated in that no explicit communication occurs between the first vehicle and the second vehicle for cooperative maneuvering).
However, Miike does not explicitly teach; outputting to the second vehicle information about whether the first vehicle will perform a give-way action.
Mudalige teaches; outputting to the second vehicle information about whether the first vehicle will perform a give-way action (taught as transmitting an intention message, indicating whether a host vehicle intends to merge ahead, behind, or change lanes to allow the remote vehicle to merge, paragraph 0040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an indication of intent as suggested by Mudalige in the system taught by Miike in order to improve communication and coordination. Much like turn signals/indicator lights, such features enable drivers [even autonomous] ones communicate, even without negotiation back and forth steps. As suggested in Mudalige, without such indication of intent, drivers may act in confusion, causing a chain of braking events that ultimately lead to traffic slow down or collision (paragraph 0003). To reiterate; one would take the base system of autonomously determining how to respond to a merging vehicle as taught by Miike and modify it with a message of intent as taught by Mudalige in order to improve communication and coordination between drivers. In essence, such a combination assumes/does not check for Mudalige’s further handshake of acceptance; the message merely serves as an indicator of a vehicle intent, not a negotiation.
Regarding claim 2, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Miike further teaches; wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle about performing the give-way action when the first vehicle performs the give-way action (taught as a notification unit, which notifies the driver of the first vehicle about the control content of the first vehicle before the control of the first vehicle is initiated, paragraph 0189, for example, decelerate because a merging vehicle is approaching, paragraph 0193).
Regarding claim 6, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Miike does not explicitly teach; wherein the information about travel of the second vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the second vehicle, wherein the estimated travel route for the second vehicle is received from the second vehicle via vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
Mudalige teaches; wherein the information about travel of the second vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the second vehicle, wherein the estimated travel route for the second vehicle is received from the second vehicle (taught as data communicated between vehicles including projected travel path, course heading, and navigation data, paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate travel routes between vehicles as suggested by Mudalige in the system taugt by Miike in order to improve coordination. Much like turn signals/indicator lights, such features enable drivers [even autonomous] ones communicate, even without negotiation back and forth steps. As suggested in Mudalige, without such indication of intent, drivers may act in confusion, causing a chain of braking events that ultimately lead to traffic slow down or collision (paragraph 0003). Additionally, since Miike already suggests the use of vehicle-to-vehicle communication (paragraph 0125), which can be used to receive vehicle information and control operation of the first vehicle (paragraph 0184), and further adjusts control of the first vehicle based on the behavior of the merging vehicle (paragraph 0160), explicitly communicating an estimated travel route would be a simple modification of what is included in transmitted vehicle information.
Regarding claim 7, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection). However, Miike does not explicitly teach; wherein the information about travel of the first vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the first vehicle.
Mudalige teaches; wherein the information about travel of the first vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the first vehicle (taught as data communicated between vehicles including projected travel path, course heading, and navigation data, paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate travel routes between vehicles as suggested by Mudalige in the system taught by Miike in order to improve coordination. Much like turn signals/indicator lights, such features enable drivers [even autonomous] ones communicate, even without negotiation back and forth steps. As suggested in Mudalige, without such indication of intent, drivers may act in confusion, causing a chain of braking events that ultimately lead to traffic slow down or collision (paragraph 0003). Additionally, since Miike already suggests the use of vehicle-to-vehicle communication (paragraph 0125), which can be used to receive vehicle information and control operation of the first vehicle (paragraph 0184), and further adjusts control of the first vehicle based on the behavior of the merging vehicle (paragraph 0160), explicitly communicating an estimated travel route would be a simple modification of what is included in transmitted vehicle information.
Regarding claim 10, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Miike further teaches; wherein the controller is further configured to avoid performing the give-way action in response to failing to satisfy the predetermined conditions (taught as, when predetermined conditions are not met, not executing autonomous control and requesting human operation, shown in Fig 5b, S15; indicating that the give-way action is not performed).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miike (US20220250623A1) as modified by Mudalige (US20130099911A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bostick (US20160012727A1).
Regarding claim 3, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Miike does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle of characteristics of the second vehicle when the first vehicle performs the give-way action.
Bostick teaches; wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle of characteristics of the second vehicle when the first vehicle performs the give-way action (taught as a vehicle communication program displaying vehicle information such as Blue SUV or Grey Sedan to the user, paragraph 0025).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate to a user/driver of vielle characteristics as taught by Bostick in the system taught by Miike in order to improve communication and user awareness. As taught by Bostick, such notification allows a user to quickly identify the vehicle to which the vehicle communication program is referring to (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, Miike already suggests the identification/collection of vehicle information including vehicle type of the merging vehicle (e.g. paragraph 0153); modifying the notification to include this information as suggested by Bostick would improve the user recognition and awareness of the situation.
Regarding claim 4, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Miike does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller includes information about characteristics of the first vehicle in the information output to the second vehicle about whether the first vehicle will perform the give- way action.
Bostik teaches; wherein the controller includes information about characteristics of the first vehicle in the information output to the second vehicle about whether the first vehicle will perform the give- way action (taught as vehicle communication programs, receiving a message along with a VIN associated with the vehicle which sent the message, paragraph 0028, and further utilizes the VIN to identify the make and model of the vehicle, such as Blue SUV of Grey Sedan, which sent the message, paragraph 0029; this indicates that any communication sent between vehicles would include this information for identification purposes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate to a user/driver of vielle characteristics as taught by Bostick in the system taught by Miike in order to improve communication and user awareness. As taught by Bostick, such notification allows a user to quickly identify the vehicle to which the vehicle communication program is referring to (paragraph 0025). Furthermore, Miike already suggests the identification/collection of vehicle information including vehicle type of the merging vehicle (e.g. paragraph 0153); modifying the notification to include this information as suggested by Bostick would improve the user recognition and awareness of the situation.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miike (US20220250623A1) as modified by Mudalige (US20130099911A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stork (US20180172355A1).
Regarding claim 5, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Miike further teaches; wherein the predetermined conditions include an ability to maintain a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle at a predetermined distance or more (taught as checking whether a vehicle is behind or not within a predetermined distance backward of the [first] vehicle, paragraph 0178) [[by decelerating the first vehicle at a predetermined decelerating or less]]; and
the controller outputs, as the command for the first vehicle to perform the give-way action, a command for applying a brake so that [examiner notes that ‘so that’ is intended use language] the decelerating of the first vehicle [[is equal to or less than the predetermined decelerating]] (taught as, when there is no vehicle behind [within a predetermined backward distance], generating a brake operation paragraph 0179; while not explicitly at a predetermined rate, such a feature is accomplishable [intended use]).
However, Miike does not explicitly teach; by decelerating the first vehicle at a predetermined decelerating or less, the decelerating of the first vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined decelerating.
Jha teaches; wherein the predetermined conditions include an ability to maintain a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle at a predetermined distance or more by decelerating the first vehicle at a predetermined decelerating [examiner notes that no meaningful bounds are provided, and thus any amount of deceleration/acceleration would fulfill the current claim language] or less (taught as requiring a safe insertion gap between a subject [merging, second] vehicle and a cooperative [target, first] vehicle, paragraph 0205); and
the controller outputs, as the command for the first vehicle to take the give-way action, a command for applying a brake so that the decelerating of the first vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined decelerating (taught as coordinating the subject and target vehicle, such that the subject vehicle is decelerated for the gap creation required, paragraph 0206).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance requirement as taught by Jha in the system taught by Mudalige in order to improve safety and efficiency. Mudalige already teaches the idea that the cooperating vehicle assists the host vehicle with merging by adjusting speed (paragraph 0047). Thus, coupled with the idea of engaging the merge cooperation and maintaining the safe, required inter vehicle gap as suggested by Jha (paragraph 0205), one of ordinary skill in the art would effectively result in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Miike as modified by Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection). Miike further teaches; wherein the predetermined conditions comprise:
(i) whether a distance between the first vehicle on the estimated route of the first vehicle and the second vehicle on the estimated route of the second vehicle at a same point in time is less than a threshold distance (taught as determining whether the vehicle-to-vehicle distance after merging is shorter than a predetermined value, paragraph 0173, 0178, using calculated arrival times based on predicted merging points and information from the first vehicle and the merging vehicle, paragraph 0163),
However, Miike does not explicitly teach; whether deceleration of the first vehicle to maintain the distance greater than or equal to the threshold distance is less than or equal to a threshold deceleration.
Stock teaches; whether deceleration of the first vehicle to maintain the distance greater than or equal to the threshold distance is less than or equal to a threshold deceleration (taught as determining whether a lane change or merging maneuver is possible within predetermined jerk/deceleration limits without falling below a threshold minimum distance, paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider predetermined limits/conditions, such as suggested in Stock, in the system taught by Mudalige, in order to improve lane merging control, safety, and comfort. Such consideration explicitly considers system limits of the vehicles and the environmental situation of the vehicle, and as taught by Stock, reduces the number of driver interventions and increased comfort (paragraph 0031). Trying to implement a maneuver that requires more capability than the system can handle, such as needing to go beyond a vehicle’s maximum deceleration ability, would likely result in situations that are unsafe; for example, not accounting for a maximum deceleration limit could attempt cause the vehicle to fall below a minimum distance threshold and subsequently collide with another vehicle. To reiterate; one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply system/predetermined limits on vehicle performance as a condition to implement a suggested maneuver, as suggested in Stock, in the system taught by Miike, in order to improve the safety and comfort of a lane change or merging operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of the remarks that Mudalige does not explicitly or inherently disclose the amended claim language, and thus should not be rejected under 102.
The examiner agrees; Mudalige never explicitly discloses a brake, or operating a brake autonomously as required by the amended claim, and withdraws the anticipatory rejection.
However, the applicant’s argument on page 6 of the remarks that Mudalige fails to disclose “outputting to the second vehicle information about whether the first vehicle will perform a give-way action” in unpersuasive; Mudalige explicitly teaches signaling an intention from a host [first] vehicle to a remote [second] vehicle about its intended maneuver (paragraph 0040).
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments on page 6 regarding “in response to determining…are satisfied” is additionally unpersuasive. A one-sided negotiation [i.e. the other party never responds, accepts, or is unable to respond] (e.g. paragraph 0043, executing the predetermined scheme for a maneuver) does technically fulfill the requirement of not receiving a request as required in the amended claim.
However, to better keep in mind the interpreted intention of the applicant, e.g. paragraph 0009 of the specification in the risk of missing an opportunity to give way due to delays in communication/negotiation, the examiner has reframed the rejection to be around Miike, and modified by Mudalige, as presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further merge space/gap considerations, related to claim 5; US11338813B2, US20170203764A1, US20180339708A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights