DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed January 20, 2026. Claim 5 was canceled. Claim 21 was added. Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. 35 USC § 112 rejection. Applicant's arguments/remarks filed January 20, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 112 rejection is withdrawn.
5. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed January 20, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “Lin does not teach or suggest the claimed conditional enable/disable behavior. Second, Dulberg does not disclose any in-vehicle enable/disable logic tied to map-defined zones. The Office Action relies on Dulberg for the missing "intersection mitigation features." But Dulberg's teachings are fundamentally infrastructure-based, not vehicle-based. Dulberg describes a traffic management controller that: 1) changes traffic light states based on real-time traffic conditions, and 2) transmits messages to vehicles approaching intersections to improve throughput (e.g., signaling them to adjust their position or behavior). Dulberg, paras. [0012]-[0013], [0018], and [0019]. Nowhere does Dulberg disclose in-vehicle logic for enabling or disabling intersection mitigation features based on the vehicle's position relative to a map-defined intersection zone. Dulberg's messages are sent to vehicles. Thus, the logic resides in the infrastructure controller, not inside the vehicle. Dulberg simply does not teach: 1) vehicle-side gating logic, 2) zone-based feature activation, or 3)suppression of warnings/messages/interventions outside a defined map region. Thus, although Dulberg may describe "intersection-related messaging," it does not provide any basis to infer that a vehicle should turn intersection features on and off depending on its location within a mapped zone. Third, the combination of Lin and Dulberg still does not yield all of the features recited by independent claims 1 and 11.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.
Pursuant to MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations argued by the applicant are described in the combination of the prior art reference presented in the non-final rejection. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the systems disclosed in the prior art to allow the system to be implemented in a vehicle. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-4 and 6-21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, US 2024/0255307, in view of Dulberg et al. US 2020/0242922, hereinafter referred to as Lin and Dulberg, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of providing intersection mitigation for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving vehicle location data (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, “the system(s) may initially localize the vehicle with respect to the intersection. In some examples, the system(s) may localize the vehicle using data (e.g., location data) received from the vehicle and/or map data representing a map (e.g., an HD map, a GNSS/GPS map, etc.) of the environment for which the intersection is located.”);
comparing the vehicle location data to map data, wherein the map data comprises a plurality of intersection zones, each intersection zone encompassing an intersection between two or more roads (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 3, “the vehicle may use a map of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating to identify locations and/or layouts of intersections. For instance, along with indications of lane locations, road boundary locations, and/or the like, a map (such as an HD map) may include indications ( e.g., labels, bounding shapes, etc.) of the locations and/or layouts of the intersections within the environment..”);
when the vehicle location data indicates the vehicle is outside of an intersection zone of the plurality of intersection zones, disabling one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 54, 56, 24, “The system(s) may also filter out one or more of the projected location(s) that are not included within the clustered locations, such as a projected location(s) that is outside of the threshold distance. Using the cluster location(s ), the system(s) may then determine the final location for the boundary(ies) associated with the intersection..”); and
when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone of the plurality of intersection zones, enabling the one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 167, 155, “the I2V communication concept provides information about traffic further ahead. CACC systems may include either or both I2V and V2V information sources. Given the information of the vehicles ahead of the vehicle 800, CACC may be more reliable and it has potential to improve traffic flow smoothness and reduce congestion on the road”).
Lin fails to explicitly disclose one or more intersection mitigation features.
However, Dulberg teaches one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and include one or more intersection mitigation features as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the method to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each intersection zone is defined by a radius surrounding an individual intersection (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 58, 50, “the map 402 may represent at least the environment 304 that the vehicles 302 were navigating, where the map 402 includes at least a representation 404 of the intersection 306 (which may also be referred to as the "intersection 404"), a representation 406 of the feature 310 (which may also be referred to as the "feature 406"), a representation 408 of the structure 312 (which may also be referred to as the "structure 408"), and representations of the roads.”).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises one or more of a traffic light mitigation feature and a cross traffic mitigation feature (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 155, 28, 37, 61, 75, “direction, location of other vehicles ( e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by the controller(s) 836, etc. For example, the HMI display 834 may display information about the presence of one or more objects (e.g., a street sign, caution sign, traffic light changing,
etc.), and/or information about driving maneuvers the vehicle has made, is making, or will make”).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the traffic light mitigation feature is operable to provide one or more of an informing message, a warning, and an intervention (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 155, 28, 37, 61, 75, 131, “a warning sign consisting of "Caution: flashing lights indicate icy conditions," along with an electric light, may be independently or collectively interpreted by several neural networks. The sign itself may be identified as a traffic sign by a first deployed neural network ( e.g., a neural network that has been trained), the text "Flashing lights indicate icy conditions" may be interpreted by a
second deployed neural network, which informs the vehicle's path planning software (preferably executing on the CPU Complex) that when flashing lights are detected, icy conditions exist.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the method of claim 1.
Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issuing a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow.
However, Dulberg teaches wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issuing a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and include wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issuing a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the method to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 167, 155, “the I2V communication concept provides information about traffic further ahead. CACC systems may include either or both I2V and V2V information sources. Given the information of the vehicles ahead of the vehicle 800, CACC may be more reliable and it has potential to improve traffic flow smoothness and reduce congestion on the road”).
Lin fails to explicitly disclose issuing a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow.
However, Dulberg teaches issuing a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and include issuing a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the method to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the violation confidence is based on a last intervention time defined by a required stopping position, a current state of the vehicle, and dynamic limits of the vehicle (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, “the system(s) may initially localize the vehicle with respect to the intersection. In some examples, the system(s) may localize the vehicle using data (e.g., location data) received from the vehicle and/or map data representing a map (e.g., an HD map, a GNSS/GPS map, etc.) of the environment for which the intersection is located.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the method of claim 1.
Lin fails to explicitly wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, applying an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold.
However, Dulberg teaches wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, applying an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and include wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the method further comprises, receiving sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, applying an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the method to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a cross traffic mitigation feature, and the method further comprises receiving sensor data indicating an obstacle within a lane of the vehicle and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, applying an intervention when an amount of braking for stopping before the obstacle is within a vehicle capability, a collision confidence is greater than a threshold, and the obstacle overlaps with a lane of the vehicle by a threshold value (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, 28, 158, 160, 157, “AEB systems detect an impending forward collision with another vehicle or other object, and may automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not take corrective action within a specified time or distance parameter. AEB systems may use front-facing camera(s) and/or
RADAR sensor(s) 860, coupled to a dedicated processor, DSP, FPGA, and/or ASIC. When the AEB system detects a hazard, it typically first alerts the driver to take corrective action to avoid the collision and, if the driver does not take corrective action, the AEB system may automatically apply the brakes in an effort to prevent, or at least mitigate, the impact of the predicted collision”).
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses a vehicle comprising: a location sensor; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive vehicle location data from the location sensor (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, “the system(s) may initially localize the vehicle with respect to the intersection. In some examples, the system(s) may localize the vehicle using data (e.g., location data) received from the vehicle and/or map data representing a map (e.g., an HD map, a GNSS/GPS map, etc.) of the environment for which the intersection is located.”);
compare the vehicle location data to map data, wherein the map data comprises a plurality of intersection zones, each intersection zone encompassing an intersection between two or more roads (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 3, “the vehicle may use a map of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating to identify locations and/or layouts of intersections. For instance, along with indications of lane locations, road boundary locations, and/or the like, a map (such as an HD map) may include indications ( e.g., labels, bounding shapes, etc.) of the locations and/or layouts of the intersections within the environment..”);
when the vehicle location data indicates the vehicle is outside of an intersection zone of the plurality of intersection zones, disable one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 54, 56, 24, “The system(s) may also filter out one or more of the projected location(s) that are not included within the clustered locations, such as a projected location(s) that is outside of the threshold distance. Using the cluster location(s ), the system(s) may then determine the final location for the boundary(ies) associated with the intersection..”); and
when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone of the plurality of intersection zones, enable the one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 167, 155, “the I2V communication concept provides information about traffic further ahead. CACC systems may include either or both I2V and V2V information sources. Given the information of the vehicles ahead of the vehicle 800, CACC may be more reliable and it has potential to improve traffic flow smoothness and reduce congestion on the road”).
Lin fails to explicitly disclose one or more intersection mitigation features.
However, Dulberg teaches one or more intersection mitigation features (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin and include one or more intersection mitigation features as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the method to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein each intersection zone is defined by a radius surround an individual intersection (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 58, 50, “the map 402 may represent at least the environment 304 that the vehicles 302 were navigating, where the map 402 includes at least a representation 404 of the intersection 306 (which may also be referred to as the "intersection 404"), a representation 406 of the feature 310 (which may also be referred to as the "feature 406"), a representation 408 of the structure 312 (which may also be referred to as the "structure 408"), and representations of the roads.”).
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises one or more of a traffic light mitigation feature and a cross traffic mitigation feature (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 155, 28, 37, 61, 75, “direction, location of other vehicles ( e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by the controller(s) 836, etc. For example, the HMI display 834 may display information about the presence of one or more objects (e.g., a street sign, caution sign, traffic light changing,
etc.), and/or information about driving maneuvers the vehicle has made, is making, or will make”).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the traffic light mitigation feature is operable to provide one or more of an informing message, a warning, and an intervention (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 155, 28, 37, 61, 75, 131, “a warning sign consisting of "Caution: flashing lights indicate icy conditions," along with an electric light, may be independently or collectively interpreted by several neural networks. The sign itself may be identified as a traffic sign by a first deployed neural network ( e.g., a neural network that has been trained), the text "Flashing lights indicate icy conditions" may be interpreted by a
second deployed neural network, which informs the vehicle's path planning software (preferably executing on the CPU Complex) that when flashing lights are detected, icy conditions exist.”).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein: the informing message comprises a visual message displayed on an electronic display of the vehicle; the warning comprises the visual message displayed on the electronic display and one or more of an audio warning produced by an audio device of the vehicle and haptic feedback produced by a haptic actuator of the vehicle; and the intervention comprises autonomously apply brakes to the vehicle (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 155, 28, 37, 61, 75, 131, 158, 153, “The vehicle 800 may include an ADAS system 838. The ADAS system 838 may include a SoC, in some examples. The ADAS system 838 may include autonomous/ adaptive/automatic cruise control (ACC), cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC), forward crash warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warnings (LDW), lane keep assist (LKA), blind spot warning (BSW), rear cross-traffic warning (RCTW), collision warning systems (CWS),”).
Regarding claim 16, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11.
Lin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issue a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow.
However, Dulberg teaches wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issue a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lin and include wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, issue a traffic light informing message when the status of the traffic light is red or yellow as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the system to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 167, 155, “the I2V communication concept provides information about traffic further ahead. CACC systems may include either or both I2V and V2V information sources. Given the information of the vehicles ahead of the vehicle 800, CACC may be more reliable and it has potential to improve traffic flow smoothness and reduce congestion on the road”).
Lin fails to explicitly disclose issue a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow.
However, Dulberg teaches issue a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lin and include issue a traffic light warning when one or more of the following are true: the vehicle is currently applying an intervention; and the vehicle is not currently applying an intervention, a violation confidence is above a threshold, and the status of the traffic light is red or yellow as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the system to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the violation confidence is based on a last intervention time defined by a required stop position, a current state of the vehicle, and dynamic limits of the vehicle (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, “the system(s) may initially localize the vehicle with respect to the intersection. In some examples, the system(s) may localize the vehicle using data (e.g., location data) received from the vehicle and/or map data representing a map (e.g., an HD map, a GNSS/GPS map, etc.) of the environment for which the intersection is located.”).
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11.
Lin fails to explicitly wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, apply an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold.
However, Dulberg teaches wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, apply an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold (See at least fig 1-56, ¶ 115, 129, 131, 157, 162, 170, 197, 204, 112, “One way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by changing the traffic lights based on the real traffic conditions as opposed to predefined scheduling regime. Another way in which controller 120 may increase the average throughput of intersection 105 is by transmitting messages to at least some of the vehicles approaching intersection 105 causing them to adjust their location based on the determined locations of other road users”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lin and include wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a traffic light mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating a status of a traffic light and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, apply an intervention when the vehicle is not currently intervening and a driver of the vehicle is not accelerating the vehicle, the status of the traffic light is red or yellow and an amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is within a vehicle capability, and when: the driver is not applying a brake pedal, a violation confidence is above a first threshold and the driver is applying the brake pedal, the violation confidence is above a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold, and the violation confidence is above the first threshold and less than the second threshold, and the amount of braking for stopping at the intersection is below a braking threshold as taught by Dulberg because it would allow the system to sense traffic congestion in one or more incoming traffic lanes to the intersection, and may alter the control signals sent to traffic lights and to facilitate traffic flow through the intersection (Dulberg ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the one or more intersection mitigation features comprises a cross traffic mitigation feature, and the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive sensor data indicating an obstacle within a lane of the vehicle and, when the vehicle location data indicates that the vehicle is within an intersection zone, apply an intervention when an amount of braking for stopping before the obstacle is within a vehicle capability, a collision confidence is greater than a threshold, and the obstacle overlaps with a lane of the vehicle by a threshold value (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23, 24, 25, 22, 28, 158, 160, 157, “AEB systems detect an impending forward collision with another vehicle or other object, and may automatically apply the brakes if the driver does not take corrective action within a specified time or distance parameter. AEB systems may use front-facing camera(s) and/or RADAR sensor(s) 860, coupled to a dedicated processor, DSP, FPGA, and/or ASIC. When the AEB system detects a hazard, it typically first alerts the driver to take corrective action to avoid the collision and, if the driver does not take corrective action, the AEB system may automatically apply the brakes in an effort to prevent, or at least mitigate, the impact of the predicted collision”).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each intersection zone is defined in the map data as a geometric region surrounding an intersection, and the one or more intersection mitigation features are enabled only when the vehicle is located within the intersection zone (See at least fig 1-10, ¶ 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 3, “the vehicle may use a map of an environment for which the vehicle is navigating to identify locations and/or layouts of intersections. For instance, along with indications of lane locations, road boundary locations, and/or the like, a map (such as an HD map) may include indications ( e.g., labels, bounding shapes, etc.) of the locations and/or layouts of the intersections within the environment..”).
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 extension fee 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 LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights