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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-89 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-4 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 5-8 are presented as original claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ’502 et al. (US 20220206502 A1) in view of Grace et al. (US 20230077837 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Zhang' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Zhang ’502 teaches a vehicle control device which controls traveling of a vehicle
while acquiring object information about an object detected by a road side device, and blind spot information including a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object, estimated on the basis of the object information, the vehicle control device comprising: (Zhang ’502: ¶ 042; method of calculating the blind area region . . . which is the region of the blind area 7 which is located on an opposite side of the object 6 from the RSU 1 and cannot detected by the RSU 1.) (Zhang ’502: ¶ 065; object region and the blind area region of the RSU 1 is substantially transmitted to the automatic driving vehicle) an own-position acquisition circuitry which acquires a position of the vehicle; (Zhang ’502: ¶ 040; a positioning module of global navigation satellite system) a sensor which is mounted on the vehicle and which performs detection at least frontward of the vehicle; (Zhang ’502: ¶ 082; driving part 34 includes a sensor 341) a route generation circuitry which generates a traveling route on which the vehicle travels, using the position of the vehicle, the object information, and the blind spot information; and (Zhang ’502: ¶ 035; vehicle 3 determines a traveling route) a control circuitry which performs driving control of the vehicle, (Zhang ’502: ¶ 099; automatic driving of autonomous driving (AD)) wherein the route generation circuitry includes a route calculation circuitry which calculates the traveling route on which the vehicle travels, (Zhang ’502: ¶ 088; route generation part 331 generates, as a temporary route 53, a route along which the subject vehicle 51 can reach a destination 52 in a shortest distance) and a traveling determination circuitry which determines whether or not traveling is possible on the calculated traveling route, the route calculation circuitry calculates a first traveling route for avoiding the object, on the basis of the acquired object information, (Zhang ’502: ¶ 089; In a case where an object region 55 of a stationary object is located on the temporary route 53 as illustrated in FIG. 16, the route generation part 331 generates the traveling route 56 for the subject vehicle to avoid the object region 55 of the stationary object.) the traveling determination circuitry determines whether or not the first traveling route passes through the blind spot area due to the object, (Zhang ’502: ¶ 090; In a case where a blind area region 57 of a moving object is located on the temporary route 53, the route generation part 331 generates a traveling route for the subject vehicle to temporarily stop in front of the blind area region 57 of the moving object and to start traveling when the blind area region 57 is out of front of the subject vehicle 51. In a case where a blind area region 58 of a stationary object is located on the temporary route 53 as illustrated in FIG. 18, the route generation part 331 generates the traveling route 59 for the subject vehicle to avoid the object region 55 of the stationary object and the blind area region 58.)
Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach: if it is determined that the first traveling route of the vehicle passes through the blind spot area of the road side device, the traveling determination circuitry estimates whether or not the sensor mounted to the vehicle is able to detect the blind spot area of the road side devicewhile traveling on the first traveling route, if it is estimated that the sensor is able to detect the blind spot area of the road side device, the traveling determination circuitry determines whether or not the vehicle is able to pass through the blind spot area of the road side device, and the control circuitry controls the vehicle so as to travel along the first traveling route in accordance with a determination result for whether or not the vehicle is able to pass through the blind spot area of the road side devicarea of the road side device while traveling on the first traveling route, the traveling determination circuitry determines that the vehicle is unable to pass through the blind spot area of the road side device, and the route calculation circuitry calculates a second traveling route that avoids the blind spot area of the road side device or the control circuitry causes the vehicle to wait; however, Grace does teach:
if it is determined that the first traveling route of the vehicle passes through the blind spot area of the road side device, (Grace: ¶ 082; AV1 . . . may receive an indication of the stationary sensor 810 (i.e., in this case X is the stationary sensor 810) that is in the vicinity of the AV 110a and has the region of visibility 830 that partially overlaps with the blocked region 620. In various embodiments, AV1 may receive the indication of X in the step 1008 using the communications module 310 of the collaborative perception system 130 of AV1.) the traveling determination circuitry estimates whether or not the sensor mounted to the vehicle is able to detect the blind spot area of the road side devicewhile traveling on the first traveling route, (Grace: ¶ 085; AV1 may still establish a driving strategy in 1014 based on the knowledge that X did not provide such information.) (Grace: Fig. 007; [showing predicted vehicle [110a] path passing through blind spot]) if it is estimated that the sensor is able to detect the blind spot area of the road side device, (Grace: ¶ 079; AV1 may provide such a request to the vehicle management system 140 that has an overview of all AVs 110 in the fleet as well as infrastructure sensors 150 (e.g., stored in the location database 430). The communications module 310 of the collaborative perception system 130 of AV1 may [indicate that resource X is] identified to AV1 in response to the request of the step 1004 may be an X that has a view of the blind spot of AV1.) (Grace: ¶ 082; [AV] may receive an indication of the stationary sensor 810 (i.e., in this case X is the stationary sensor 810) that is in the vicinity of the AV 110a and has the region of visibility 830 that partially overlaps with the blocked region 620.. . . using the communications module 310 of the collaborative perception system 130 of AV1.) the traveling determination circuitry determines whether or not the vehicle is able to pass through the blind spot area of the road side device, and the control circuitry controls the vehicle so as to travel along the first traveling route in accordance with a determination result for whether or not the vehicle is able to pass through the blind spot area of the road side devic (Grace: ¶ 084-085; include AV1 receiving sensor readings of the perception unit X and/or results of processing of said sensor readings of the perception unit X [and] may proceed with a step 1014 that includes AV1 establishing a driving strategy based on the data received) and if it is estimated that the sensor is unable to detect the blind spot area of the road side device while traveling on the first traveling route, the traveling determination circuitry determines that the vehicle is unable to pass through the blind spot area of the road side device, and the route calculation circuitry calculates a second traveling route that avoids the blind spot area of the road side device or the control circuitry causes the vehicle to wait (Grace: ¶ 088; Upon negative determination in the step 1016, the method 1000 may proceed with a step 1020 that includes AV1 establishing a driving strategy based on the fact that no perception unit X in the vicinity of AV1 that is capable of obtaining information indicative of the environment of AV1 was found. For example, AV1 may decide to slow down or stop to be on the safe side, or to wait until the information on the blind spot is received from another perception unit.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Grace with the teachings of Zhang ’502 because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of autonomous vehicles “mak[ing] better driving decisions by having more information on a scene" (Grace: ¶ 095).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Zhang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhang ‘372 et al. (US 20200128372 A1).
Regarding claim 2, combination Zhang teaches:
. . . the blind spot area of the road side device, (Grace: ¶ 082; AV1 . . . may receive an indication of the stationary sensor 810 (i.e., in this case X is the stationary sensor 810) that is in the vicinity of the AV 110a and has the region of visibility 830 that partially overlaps with the blocked region 620. In various embodiments, AV1 may receive the indication of X in the step 1008 using the communications module 310 of the collaborative perception system 130 of AV1.)calculates an arrival period until arriving at the blind spot area of the road side device . . . the route calculation circuitry calculates the second traveling route for avoiding the blind spot area of the road side device or the control circuitry causes the vehicle to wait (Grace: ¶ 085; AV1 may still establish a driving strategy in 1014 based on the knowledge that X did not provide such information.) (Grace: Fig. 007; [showing predicted vehicle [110a] path passing through blind spot])
Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach: wherein the route generation circuitry further includes an arrival period calculation circuitry which, if the traveling determination circuitry determines that the first traveling route of the vehicle passes through . . . from a present location of the vehicle, the traveling determination circuitry compares the calculated arrival period with a predetermined threshold, and if the arrival period is equal to the threshold or smaller. . . ; however, Zhang ‘372 does teach:
wherein the route generation circuitry further includes an arrival period calculation circuitry which, if the traveling determination circuitry determines that the first traveling route of the vehicle passes through (Zhang ‘372: ¶ 055; processor 52 may predict the intersection of moving object(s) with target vehicle 12 within a time window (e.g., typically less than 4 seconds), wherein the prediction is based on a statistical probability of a collision event that is greater than a predetermined threshold. According to at least one example: (a) the processor 52 identifies the target vehicle's 12 blind spot region(s) 90 (e.g., identifies the region 90 based on the relative positions of object vehicle 92 and target vehicle 12 (e.g., in some instances, the relative location of target vehicle's sensor suite 59 on vehicle 12); the processor identifies whether any static- and/or dynamic-hazard data exists (e.g., based on a calculated path, speed, and acceleration of target vehicle 12 and based on a position, path, speed, or acceleration of other objects within the blind spot region(s) 90) . . . from a present location of the vehicle, the traveling determination circuitry compares the calculated arrival period with a predetermined threshold, and if the arrival period is equal to the threshold or smaller. . . (Zhang ‘372: ¶ 057; message could include information to change the target vehicle's path, speed, or acceleration. It could include information regarding the location of the predicted physical contact or collision during the time-window, thereby permitting computer(s) onboard the vehicle 12 to decide how to avoid collision)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhang ‘372 with the teachings of Zhang_502 because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] situational awareness of the vehicle” (Zhang ‘372: ¶ 033)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Zhang in view of Zhang ‘372 teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Zhang ‘372 further teaches:
wherein if the traveling determination circuitry determines that the arrival period is greater than the threshold, the route calculation circuitry calculates a route corrected so that lane change through the first traveling route . . . (Zhang ‘372: ¶ 057; message could include information to change the target vehicle's path, speed, or acceleration. It could include information regarding the location of the predicted physical contact or collision during the time-window, thereby permitting computer(s) onboard the vehicle 12 to decide how to avoid collision)
And while Zhang ‘502 does not explicitly teach: . . . is performed a predetermined distance before the blind spot; Zhang ‘502 does teach: A system in which the route calculation circuitry calculates a route meant to avoid obstacles and blind spots and, if that is not possible, to stop the vehicle before the blind spot to allow it to resolve (Zhang ’502: ¶ 090; route generation part 331 generates a traveling route for the subject vehicle to temporarily stop in front of the blind area region 57 of the moving object and to start traveling when the blind area region 57 is out of front of the subject vehicle 51)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: is performed a predetermined distance before the blind spot. Because in order for the vehicle to stop before a blind spot, the travelling route would have to be completed at least the braking distance from the blind spot entry point.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kundu (US 20240025453 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Zhang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Grace further teaches:
wherein in a case where the traveling determination circuitry determines that the first traveling route passes of the vehicle through the blind spot area of the road side device and estimates that the sensor mounted to the vehicle is unable to detect the blind spot area of the road side device (Grace: ¶ 088; Upon negative determination in the step 1016, the method 1000 may proceed with a step 1020 that includes AV1 establishing a driving strategy based on the fact that no perception unit X in the vicinity of AV1 that is capable of obtaining information indicative of the environment of AV1 was found. For example, AV1 may decide to slow down or stop to be on the safe side, or to wait until the information on the blind spot is received from another perception unit.) while traveling on the first traveling routan entire sensing range that the sensor is unable to detect in the blind spot area, and compares whether or not the proportion of the entire sensing range that the sensor is unable to detect is a predetermined proportion or smaller (Grace: ¶ 081; vehicle management system 140 to start searching for a perception unit X, in the step 1006. For example, the request of the step 1004 may include a percentage of the region of the blind spot in the view of AV1 (e.g., with respect to the total field of view of AV1) and/or a location of the blind spot of AV1 and the vehicle management system 140 may first determine whether this percentage and/or location of the blind spot are significant enough to start searching for the perception unit X in the step 1006.) . . . the route calculation circuitry calculates a corrected route of the first traveling route so that the sensor of the vehicle becomes able to detect the blind spot area. (Grace: ¶ 088; Upon negative determination in the step 1016, the method 1000 may proceed with a step 1020 that includes AV1 establishing a driving strategy based on the fact that no perception unit X in the vicinity of AV1 that is capable of obtaining information indicative of the environment of AV1 was found. For example, AV1 may decide to slow down or stop to be on the safe side, or to wait until the information on the blind spot is received from another perception unit.)
To the extent Zhang does not teach or is silent about: . . .and if it is determined that the proportion of the entire sensing range that the sensor is unable to detect in the blind spot area is the predetermined proportion or smaller; Kundu teaches:
. . .and if it is determined that the proportion of the entire sensing range that the sensor is unable to detect in the blind spot area is the predetermined proportion or smaller . . . (Kundu: ¶ 0147; when the vehicle sensor FOV does not cover the POZ . . . computing device checks whether there are corresponding infrastructure sensors in the location . . .In the case that the VEC does not have access to sensor information for the uncovered region . . . the computing device may calculate the safety score and indicate that manual driving should be performed)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kundu with the teachings of Zhang ’502 because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of enabling autonomous vehicles “to meet the threshold associated with autonomously navigating the road segment of the first candidate route. " (Kundu: ¶ 002).
Claims 5 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohnishi et al. (US 20180336787 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Zhang teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach:
comprising: the road side device including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 1 is mounted; however, Ohnishi does teach:
comprising: the road side device (Ohnishi: ¶ 072; infrastructure sensor 31 is assumed to be installed on the road . . . road is partitioned into a blind spot region and a detection region when the infrastructure sensor 31 detects the road) including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; (Ohnishi: ¶ 081; From the first object information generated by the object detection unit 34, the blind spot information generation unit 35 calculates the blind spot region C05 due to the occlusion as illustrated) a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and (Ohnishi: ¶ 081; From the first object information generated by the object detection unit 34, the blind spot information generation unit 35 calculates the blind spot region C05 due to the occlusion as illustrated) the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 1 is mounted. (Ohnishi: ¶ 085; convert the first object information and the first blind spot information into a form available for transmission before transmitting to the vehicle).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ohnishi with the teachings of Zhang_502 because doing so would result in a predicable improvement of "operation efficiency of the vehicle [resulting from] determining whether the vehicle can turn." (Ohnishi: ¶ 314).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Zhang in view of Zhang ‘372 as applied to claims 2 and 3 respectively above, and further in view of Ohnishi et al. (US 20180336787 A1).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Zhang in view of Zhang ‘372 teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 2. Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach:
comprising: the road side device including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and
the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 2 is mounted; however, Ohnishi does teach:
comprising: the road side device (Ohnishi: ¶ 072; infrastructure sensor 31 is assumed to be installed on the road . . . road is partitioned into a blind spot region and a detection region when the infrastructure sensor 31 detects the road)
including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; (Ohnishi: ¶ 081; From the first object information generated by the object detection unit 34, the blind spot information generation unit 35 calculates the blind spot region C05 due to the occlusion as illustrated) a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and (Ohnishi: ¶ 136; object combination unit 53 outputs the object map information in which the second object information and the first object information are combined to the road atlas information, while the blind spot information combination unit 54 outputs the map information in which the second blind spot information and the first blind spot information are combined to the object map information) the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 2 is mounted. (Ohnishi: ¶ 085; convert the first object information and the first blind spot information into a form available for transmission before transmitting to the vehicle)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ohnishi with the teachings of Zhang_502 because doing so would result in a predicable improvement of "operation efficiency of the vehicle [resulting from] determining whether the vehicle can turn." (Ohnishi: ¶ 314).
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Zhang in view of Zhang ‘372 teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach:
comprising: the road side device including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 3 is mounted; however, Ohnishi does teach:
comprising: the road side device (Ohnishi: ¶ 072; infrastructure sensor 31 is assumed to be installed on the road . . . road is partitioned into a blind spot region and a detection region when the infrastructure sensor 31 detects the road) including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; (Ohnishi: ¶ 081; From the first object information generated by the object detection unit 34, the blind spot information generation unit 35 calculates the blind spot region C05 due to the occlusion as illustrated) a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and (Ohnishi: ¶ 136; object combination unit 53 outputs the object map information in which the second object information and the first object information are combined to the road atlas information, while the blind spot information combination unit 54 outputs the map information in which the second blind spot information and the first blind spot information are combined to the object map information) the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 3 is mounted. (Ohnishi: ¶ 085; convert the first object information and the first blind spot information into a form available for transmission before transmitting to the vehicle)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ohnishi with the teachings of Zhang_502 because doing so would result in a predicable improvement of "operation efficiency of the vehicle [resulting from] determining whether the vehicle can turn." (Ohnishi: ¶ 314).
Claims 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Zhang in view of Kundu as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ohnishi et al. (US 20180336787 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Zhang in view of Kundu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. Zhang ’502 does not explicitly teach:
comprising: the road side device including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 4 is mounted; however, Ohnishi does teach:
comprising: the road side device (Ohnishi: ¶ 072; infrastructure sensor 31 is assumed to be installed on the road . . . road is partitioned into a blind spot region and a detection region when the infrastructure sensor 31 detects the road) including a detection circuitry which detects an object in a predetermined area, and a blind spot calculation circuitry which, on the basis of object information about the detected object, calculates a blind spot area as a blind spot for the road side device due to the object; (Ohnishi: ¶ 081; From the first object information generated by the object detection unit 34, the blind spot information generation unit 35 calculates the blind spot region C05 due to the occlusion as illustrated) a fusion server which integrates the object information and the blind spot information acquired from one or a plurality of the road side devices and transmits the integrated information to the vehicle; and (Ohnishi: ¶ 136; object combination unit 53 outputs the object map information in which the second object information and the first object information are combined to the road atlas information, while the blind spot information combination unit 54 outputs the map information in which the second blind spot information and the first blind spot information are combined to the object map information) the vehicle to which the vehicle control device according to claim 4 is mounted. (Ohnishi: ¶ 085; convert the first object information and the first blind spot information into a form available for transmission before transmitting to the vehicle)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ohnishi with the teachings of Zhang_502 because doing so would result in a predicable improvement of "operation efficiency of the vehicle [resulting from] determining whether the vehicle can turn." (Ohnishi: ¶ 314).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed Dec. 30, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection applied to claims 1-3 and 5-8 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that
In Grace, there is no consideration of whether a traveling route of the AV passes through a blind spot of a road side device. In Grace, the AV 110a determines the existence of the blind spot 620. However, the blind spot is with respect to the own-vehicle. That is, the AV 110a in Grace is not evaluating whether it is traveling through its own blind spot. Additionally, Grace does not estimate whether the AV 110a is able to detect the blind spot area of the road side device while the AV 110a travels on the first traveling route. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 30, 2025, pg. PP).
Grace teaches at ¶ 082 that upon determining an own-vehicle-blind-spot exists from the perspective of the own-vehicle, further steps are conducted in which the own-vehicle requests the status of other X sensors and assess if their respective fields of view resolve the own-vehicle’s blind spot. One of these possible X sensors is a roadside sensor. (Grace: 082; [sensor X] that is in the vicinity of the AV 110a and has the region of visibility 730 that partially overlaps with the blocked region . . . AV1 . . . may receive an indication of the stationary sensor 810 (i.e., in this case X is the stationary sensor 810) that is in the vicinity of the AV 110a and has the region of visibility 830 that partially overlaps with the blocked region (emphasis added)). Consequently, Grace’s AV 110a does asses the blind spot of the road side device by considering exactly what additional coverage the addition of sensor X provides to the AV’s path, or in other words, considers whether a traveling route of the AV passes through a blind spot of a road side device (Grace: 084; step 1012 that includes AV1 receiving from X a response to the request of the step 1010, which response may or may not have the information on the blind spot of AV1.). Grace does this because, in order to determine a partial amount of additional sensor coverage gained, Grace must exclude the portion of additional coverage not gained. E.g. the blind sport of the road side device.
Applicant also argues:
Second, Grace fails to disclose or suggest "if it is estimated that the sensor is unable to detect the blind spot area of the road side device while traveling on the first traveling route, the traveling determination circuitry determines that the vehicle is unable to pass through the blind spot area of the road side device, and the route calculation circuitry calculates a second traveling route that avoids the blind spot area of the road side device or the control circuitry causes the vehicle to wait." (Applicant’s Arguments filed Dec. 30, 2025, pg. PP).
Grace’s teaching of combining the coverage areas of sensor X and the AV’s sensor in ¶¶ 082-084 into a “collaborative perception system [130]” which is later used when assessing AV’s [110a] path through an area in which there is no sensor coverage (Grace: ¶ 085; AV1 establishing a driving strategy based on the data received [including inter alia] changing the original driving strategy of AV1, resulting in safer behavior of AV1. In case the response of the step 1012 did not provide the information on the blind spot of AV1, AV1 may still establish a driving strategy in 1014 based on the knowledge that X did not provide such information.)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Newly applied art Kundu (US 20240025453 A1) teaches a system in which vehicle sensors and fixed infrastructure sensors are combined and used to determine an index which is used to evaluate if a route is sufficient for the use of autonomous vehicle travel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kundu’s data index teachings to Grace’s teaching of finding an alternative route in response to insufficient pooled-sensor-data before the effective date of filling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Nakagawa (US 20220058947 A1) which discloses an apparatus designed to receive, from a vehicle that is present in surroundings, information about traveling of the vehicle and predict a path of the vehicle based on the information about traveling of the vehicle,.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights