DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed December 30, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 14 have been amended. Claims 11 and 13 are presently cancelled. Claims 8 and 10 were previously canceled. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, 12, and 14-22 are pending in the application. The independent claims are claims 1, 9, and 14.
The Remarks filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112” that the conclusion of the interviewed dated December 18, 2025 as summarized in the examiner’s interview summary, was that the proposed amendment (which is identical to the present amended claim 1) would “likely result,” as the examiner put it in the summary, in the withdraw of the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated September 30, 2025. To determine if the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections should be withdrawn the examiner will first quote present claim 1. Claim 1 now recites:
A vehicle control system for driving behavior vehicle detection and notification, the vehicle control system comprising:
at least one vehicle object detector configured to detect motion of one or more target vehicles within an object detection range of a host vehicle;
a vehicle user interface configured to display a visual indication to a driver of the host vehicle; and
a vehicle control module configured to:
obtain detected motion parameters of the one or more target vehicles via the at least one vehicle object detector;
determine a hazard index for each of the one or more target vehicles, according to the detected motion parameters
including a combination of a vehicle relative lateral acceleration, a vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a vehicle lane crossing index, a vehicle lane centering index, [[or]] and a vehicle traffic rules violation index;
in response to the hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more vehicles, update the vehicle user interface to provide a visual notification, including a vehicle identifier, of identified driving behavior exceeding the specified threshold value for the at least one of the one or more target vehicles;
determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time; and
displaying
a navigation route including a first route and a different second route, and
an indication that a road portion of the first route has a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles than a road portion of the second route
The examiner does not know why the amended clauses at the end of the claim using the “ing” suffix, as in “determining” and “displaying”? None of the previous verbs use that form. However, the claim is still understandable so this is not a rejection issue. For examination purposes, the “determining” and “displaying” at the end of claim 1 can and will be interpreted as “determine” and “display”.
What are the “determined vehicles” as recited in claim 1? Are these the same as the “one or more target vehicles” with a “hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value”?
In one broad reasonable interpretation of the present claim, it teaches a host vehicle that can detect target vehicles that exceed a hazard index. In response to identifying such a vehicle, “a visual notification, including a vehicle identifier” can be displayed in the host vehicle. Furthermore, the system can determine for “multiple specified road portions,” an “average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value [of the hazard index] during a specified period of time.”
While the term “determined vehicles” is not used earlier in the claim, apparently they are vehicles that are determined to exceed the specified threshold value. There’s really no other way to interpret them.
After “determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time” the system will display “a navigation route including a first route and a different second route, and an indication that a road portion of the first route has a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles than a road portion of the second route”. The “reckless driving vehicles” is also a new term. This clause also introduces the terms “a road portion”. There is “a road portion of the first route” and “a road portion of the second route”.
Is the “a road portion of the first route” and the “a road portion of the second route” part of the “multiple specified road portions”? The claim does not say.
So there are really three distinct things going on in the claim. The first is that a host vehicle will detect a hazardous driver within sensor range of the host vehicle and display some notification of it to the host vehicle occupant.
The second is “determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time”.
The third is “displaying” what route has “a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles”.
The examiner believes that the “determining…an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold” does not do anything else in the claim. It is not tied in to any other part of the claim. It is not tied into the “displaying” step. The “reckless driving vehicles” are not defined as related to the specified threshold value. They “multiple specified road portions” are not tied to the “a road portion of the first route” and the “a road portion of the second route”. So while the claim has written description, the “determining” clause, which admittedly is very hard to find, if it exists at all in the prior art, functionally does nothing beyond take up computing power.
The “determining” and “displaying” clauses of the claim relate Fig. 8 and paragraphs 0082-0086 of the published present disclosure. In particular, paragraph 0082 teaches that the host vehicle may “obtain data indicative of average numbers of detected reckless driving vehicles on various roads over specified time periods.” Paragraph 0083 teaches that “This information,” referring to the average numbers of detected reckless driving vehicles” may be used to “highlight to the driver which portions of roads in the area have a higher risk of encountering more identified reckless driving vehicles.” Paragraph 0084 teaches that the system can make the host vehicle driver “aware of roads having high frequencies of identified reckless driving vehicles”. The equation for a “Region Hazard Index (RHI)” is given in the paragraph. According to paragraph 0085, the equation involves “the number of detected reckless driving occurrences during time T”. Here the measurement is not the “numbers of detected reckless driving vehicles” but the number of “reckless driving occurrences”. According to paragraphs 0052-0053 a vehicle can be categorized as reckless if it has a “number of occurrences” of reckless driving in a specified period of time.
Yet paragraphs 0082-0083 still support the idea that the number of detected vehicles can be used to label routes as either having a higher risk of encountering a reckless driving vehicle as compared to a different route with a lower frequency of reckless driving vehicles.
Paragraph 0085 teaches that the reckless driving occurrences “may be detected by other vehicles and transmitted to a central monitoring server”. The examiner notes that the present independent claims, including claim 14, recite sensors that detect reckless vehicles, but the host vehicle needs to download reckless vehicle driving data from a server in order to determine a first route and an alternative route.
As the examiner pointed out in the last detailed action, various terms for “hazard index” are used in the disclosure. These have a relationship to the term “reckless driving vehicles”. Paragraph 0063 of the present published disclosure, Abroshan et al. (US2025/0050873 A1), explicitly makes the hazard index synonymous with “a reckless driving index”. The paragraph states that “various indices may be combined to generate an overall hazard index (e.g., a reckless driving index)”. Paragraph 0064 then states that if “the hazard index” is above a threshold then the target vehicle may be identified as a reckless driving vehicle. So it seems that “a reckless driving index” and a “hazard index” are identical. Also, Fig. 4, step 412 recites “Any vehicle > Reckless driving threshold?” If there is a Yes out of step 412, the system will “identify reckless vehicle in HMI display” in step 416. Thus, it seems that the “reckless driving vehicles” in claim 1 are those that exceed a hazard index. That has written description in the disclosure, whereas other interpretations of what a reckless driving vehicles is may not.
The examiner agrees to withdraw the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
The applicant argues under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103” that the prior art of record, including Nakaya (US2022/0327932 A1) and Ferguson (US2022/0250628 A1), do not teach present claim 1 as amended. In particular, on page 13 of the Remarks the applicant cites examples from the present disclosure and then on page 14 argues that Ferguson does not teach these examples. In particular, the applicant argues that Ferguson does not teach a navigation map providing multiple routes with warnings based on comparisons of historical reckless driving vehicles on different routes.
The applicant characterizes Ferguson as teaching “determining a number of unsafe events for a group of vehicles.” Ferguson paragraph 0007, as cited in the last detailed action, teaches that data on vehicles, such as their swerving, hard braking, and excessive speeding, obtained within “timeframes” can put them out of the norm for vehicle’s in their group. The “number of unsafe events”…for a particular time period” can be measured for a vehicle. And “a measure of safety for a group of vehicles may be an average number of unsafe events determined…for the particular period of time.” The examiner agrees to withdraw the use of Ferguson. But the applicant has changed the embodiment of the independent claims. In the last set of claims, claim 14 was the only one that contained this “average number of determined vehicles” language. The present claims now claim determining this average for multiple road portions instead of just one. This justified finding new art, which the examiner has done.
The applicant also adds the “Further, Ferguson does not teach a navigation map providing multiple routes with warnings based on comparisons of historical reckless driving vehicles on different routes.” The examiner notes that the idea of determining and displaying the number of reckless drivers on multiple routes was not in the last set of claims. Due to amendments the grounds for rejection have changed. Please see the rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites a “displaying navigation route”. It should recite: displaying a navigation route. Appropriate response or correction is respectfully required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya (US2022/0327932 A1) in view of Seo (KR-102349938-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakaya teaches:
A vehicle control system for driving behavior vehicle detection and notification, the vehicle control system comprising (see Figs. 2, 6, 9, and 10):
at least one vehicle object detector configured to detect motion of one or more target vehicles within an object detection range of a host vehicle (see paragraph 0069);
a vehicle user interface configured to display a visual indication to a driver of the host vehicle (see Fig. 9 and 10); and
a vehicle control module (see Fig. 2, item 140) configured to:
obtain detected motion parameters of the one or more target vehicles via the at least one vehicle object detector (see Fig. 7A and 7B and paragraphs 0028 and 0029);
determine a hazard index for each of the one or more target vehicles, according to the detected motion parameters
including a combination of a vehicle relative lateral acceleration, a vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a vehicle lane crossing index, a vehicle lane centering index, [[or]] and a vehicle traffic rules violation index (both this bullet and the one above, see Nayaka paragraph 0029 for assigning weights to these parameters. See also paragraphs 0069 and 0083);
in response to the hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more vehicles, update the vehicle user interface to provide a visual notification, including a vehicle identifier, of identified driving behavior exceeding the specified threshold value for the at least one of the one or more target vehicles (see Fig. 8, S13 and Figs. 9 and 10. See also claim 5 for “vehicle identifier” data being included in the “sent-to-vehicle data”.);
displaying
a navigation route including a first route and a different second route (see paragraph 0100 for “an alternative route can be indicated. See Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”), and
an indication that a road portion of the first route has a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles than a road portion of the second route (see Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”)
Yet Nakaya does not further teach:
determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time.
However, Seo teaches:
determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time (see page 5 of the attached English translation for “analyzing…the speeding vehicle ratio according to time and day of the week”. Then sending that data to “a server of the National Police Agency, etc.” Page 5 teaches measuring how many speeding vehicles there are by “the number or ratio of vehicles speeding exceeding the reference speed for a certain period” being “greater than or equal to the reference value”. This “speeding vehicle ratio” is the average number of vehicles that are driving recklessly in a specific road section in a “time and day of the week”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya to add the additional features of determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time, as taught by Seo. The motivation for doing so would be to increasing police enforcement and “understanding the traffic flow,” as recognized by Seo (see page 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
The examiner submits that many vehicle systems determine the number of high risk vehicles on various road portions, including Seo. See the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action, and art citations in past detailed action.
Regarding claim 3, Nakaya and Seo teach the vehicle control system of claim 1.
Nakaya further teaches:
The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein
the vehicle control module is configured to generate at least one of an audible alert or a haptic seat feedback alert, in response to the hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more target vehicles (see paragraph 0100 for a beeping sound).
Regarding claim 9, Nakaya discloses:
A vehicle control system for driving behavior vehicle detection and notification, the vehicle control system comprising (see Figs. 2 and 9 and 10):
at least one vehicle object detector configured to detect motion of one or more target vehicles within an object detection range of a host vehicle (see Fig. 2, item 120);
a vehicle user interface configured to display a visual indication to a driver of the host vehicle (see Fig. 2, item 150 and Figs. 9 and 10); and
a vehicle control module configured to (see Fig. 2, item 140):
obtain detected motion parameters of the one or more target vehicles via the at least one vehicle object detector (see Fig. 7A and 7B and paragraphs 0028 and 0029);
determine a hazard index for each of the one or more target vehicles, according to the detected motion parameters, by combining see Nayaka paragraph 0029 for assigning weights to these parameters. See also paragraphs 0069 and 0083); [[and]]
in response to the hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more vehicles, update the vehicle user interface to provide a visual notification of identified driving behavior exceeding the specified threshold value for the at least one of the one or more target vehicles (see Fig. 8, S13 and Figs. 9 and 10);
displaying
a route including a first route and a different second route (see paragraph 0100 for “an alternative route can be indicated. See Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”), and
an indication that a road portion of the first route has a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles than a road portion of the second route (see Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”).
Yet Nakaya does not further teach:
determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time.
However, Seo teaches:
determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time (see page 5 of the attached English translation for “analyzing…the speeding vehicle ratio according to time and day of the week”. Then sending that data to “a server of the National Police Agency, etc.” Page 5 teaches measuring how many speeding vehicles there are by “the number or ratio of vehicles speeding exceeding the reference speed for a certain period” being “greater than or equal to the reference value”. This “speeding vehicle ratio” is the average number of vehicles that are driving recklessly in a specific road section in a “time and day of the week”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya to add the additional features of determining for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time, as taught by Seo. The motivation for doing so would be to increasing police enforcement and “understanding the traffic flow,” as recognized by Seo (see page 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 14, Nakaya teaches:
A method for driving behavior vehicle detection and notification, the method comprising:
detecting, via at least one vehicle object detector, driving motion parameters of one or more target vehicles within an object detection range of a host vehicle (see paragraph 0069);
determining a hazard index for each of the one or more vehicles, according to the detected driving motion parameters (see paragraph 0070);
in response to the hazard index exceeding a specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more target vehicles, updating a vehicle user interface to provide a visual notification of identified driving behavior for the at least one of the one or more target vehicles (see Figs. 7A and 7B for identifying vehicles whose danger score exceeds a danger level threshold of 2, meaning the vehicle has a danger level of at least 3. See Fig. 8, S18 for displaying this danger level inside a host vehicle. See Figs. 9 and 10 for examples of displaying one or more vehicles.),
providing an indication of a level of vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value for the road portion on a navigation map of the vehicle user interface (see Fig. 8, S18 for displaying this danger level inside a host vehicle. See Figs. 9 and 10 for examples of displaying one or more vehicles.), by
displaying
navigation route including a first route and a different second route (see paragraph 0100 for “an alternative route can be indicated. See Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”), and
an indication that a road portion of the first route has a higher risk of encountering reckless driving vehicles than a road portion of the second route (see Fig. 10 for a gray route and a display asking if the user wants to “change route?”)
wherein the detected driving motion parameters include, for each of the one or more target vehicles within the object detection range of the host vehicle, a relative lateral acceleration of the target vehicle, a longitudinal acceleration of the target vehicle, a lane crossing index of the target vehicle, a lane centering index of the target vehicle, and a traffic rules violation index of the target vehicle (see Nayaka paragraph 0029 for assigning weights to these parameters. See also paragraphs 0069 and 0083).
Yet Nakaya does not further teach:
obtaining, for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value for [[a]] each road portion during a specified period of time.
However, Seo teaches:
obtaining, for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value for [[a]] each road portion during a specified period of time (see page 5 of the attached English translation for “analyzing…the speeding vehicle ratio according to time and day of the week”. Then sending that data to “a server of the National Police Agency, etc.” Page 5 teaches measuring how many speeding vehicles there are by “the number or ratio of vehicles speeding exceeding the reference speed for a certain period” being “greater than or equal to the reference value”. This “speeding vehicle ratio” is the average number of vehicles that are driving recklessly in a specific road section in a “time and day of the week”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya to add the additional features of obtaining, for multiple specified road portions, an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value for [[a]] each road portion during a specified period of time, as taught by Seo. The motivation for doing so would be to increasing police enforcement and “understanding the traffic flow,” as recognized by Seo (see page 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 16, Nakaya and Seo teach the method of claim 14.
Nakaya further teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising
generating at least one of an audible alert or a haptic seat feedback alert, in response to the hazard index exceeding the specified threshold value for at least one of the one or more target vehicles (see paragraph 0100).
Regarding claim 22 see the rejection for claim 3 which is substantially similar.
Claims 2, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Seo in further view of Yahata et al. (US2025/0010719 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nakaya and Seo teach the vehicle control system of claim 1.
Yet Nakaya and Seo do not explicitly further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein:
each of the one or more target vehicles is displayed on the vehicle user interface; and
the visual notification includes a highlight of the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface.
However, Yahata teaches:
each of the one or more target vehicles is displayed on the vehicle user interface (see Figs. 41 and 42.); and
the visual notification includes a highlight of the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface (see Figs. 41 and 42.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya and Seo to add the additional features of: each of the one or more target vehicles is displayed on the vehicle user interface; and the visual notification includes a highlight of the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface, as taught by Yahata. The motivation for doing so would be to promote safe driving, as recognized by Yahata (see paragraph 0052).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is particular obvious because Nakaya at least strongly teaches toward it. See Figs. 9 and 10 for example.
Regarding claim 15, Nakaya and Seo teach the method of claim 14.
Yet Nakaya and Seo do not further teach:
The method of claim 14 further comprising:
displaying the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface; and
highlighting the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface.
However, Yahata teaches:
displaying the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface (see Figs. 41 and 42); and
highlighting the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface (see Figs. 41 and 42.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya and Seo, to add the additional features of displaying the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface; and highlighting the at least one of the one or more target vehicles on the vehicle user interface, as taught by Yahata. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the driver to quickly recognize the target object, as recognized by Yahata (see paragraph 0261).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 21 see the rejection for claim 2 which is substantially similar.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Seo in further view of Nakajim (US2020/0369151 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakaya and Seo teach the vehicle control system of claim 1.
Yet Nakaya and Seo do not explicitly further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle control module is configured to:
identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, at least one of the one or more target vehicles approaching from a rear of the host vehicle, in a lane adjacent to the host vehicle; and
display a visual hazard indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface.
However, Nakajim teaches:
identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, at least one of the one or more target vehicles approaching from a rear of the host vehicle, in a lane adjacent to the host vehicle; and
display a visual hazard indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface (for both bullet points, see Fig. 7 and paragraph 0096 for “colored portion 78” which indicates to a host vehicle driver via a HUD that another vehicle is detected as being behind and in the left adjacent lane to the current traveling lane of the host vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya and Seo, to add the additional features of a system configured to identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, at least one of the one or more target vehicles approaching from a rear of the host vehicle, in a lane adjacent to the host vehicle; and display a visual hazard indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface, as taught by Nakajim. The motivation for doing so would be to help the driver recognize when there is another vehicle around reasonably to promote safety and to promote driver benefits, as recognized and implied by Nakajim (see paragraph 0097 and the last sentence of paragraph 0100).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 17 see the rejection for claim 4 which is substantially similar.
Claims 5, 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Seo in further view of Shiozaki et al. (US2024/0326818 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakaya in view of Seo teach the vehicle control system of claim 1.
Yet Nakaya in view of Seo do not explicitly further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle control module is configured to:
identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, a lane adjacent to the host vehicle which is free of other vehicles; and
display a visual clear lane indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface.
However, Shiozaki further teaches:
identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, a lane adjacent to the host vehicle which is free of other vehicles; and
display a visual clear lane indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface (see Shiozaki Fig. 6 and paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya in view of Seo, to add the additional features of a system configured to identify, via the at least one vehicle object detector, a lane adjacent to the host vehicle which is free of other vehicles; and display a visual clear lane indication in the lane adjacent to the host vehicle on the vehicle user interface, as taught by Shiozaki. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the driver to “intuitively determine whether the lane change is possible,” as recognized by Shiozaki (see paragraph 0069).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 7, Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki teach the vehicle control system of claim 5.
Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki do not further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 5, wherein
the vehicle control module is configured to display a visual indication of a recommended lane change direction on the vehicle user interface, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles.
However Shiozaki teaches:
the vehicle control module is configured to display a visual indication of a recommended lane change direction on the vehicle user interface, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles (see Fig. 6, illustration (c) and paragraph 0057. The blue region 68c meets the present limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki to add the additional features of the vehicle control module is configured to display a visual indication of a recommended lane change direction on the vehicle user interface, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles, as taught by Shiozaki. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the driver to “intuitively determine whether the lane change is possible,” as recognized by Shiozaki (see paragraph 0069).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 18 see the rejection for claim 5 which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 20 see the rejection for claim 7 which is substantially similar.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya in view of Seo in further view of Choi et al. (2023/0052137 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki teach the vehicle control system of claim 5.
Yet Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki do not further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 5, wherein:
the host vehicle includes an advanced driver-assistance system configured to control steering of the host vehicle; and
the vehicle control module is configured to automatically execute a steering maneuver to move the host vehicle into the lane adjacent to the host vehicle, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles.
However, Choi teaches:
the host vehicle includes an advanced driver-assistance system configured to control steering of the host vehicle (see Choi paragraph 0028 for the host vehicle having an ADAS system that includes steering, acceleration, and braking, and autonomy including automated lane changes.); and
the vehicle control module is configured to automatically execute a steering maneuver to move the host vehicle into the lane adjacent to the host vehicle, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles (see paragraph 0071 for performing an overtaking maneuver when there is “a pathway sufficient to overtake”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya, Seo, and Shiozaki to add the additional features in which the host vehicle includes an advanced driver-assistance system configured to control steering of the host vehicle; and the vehicle control module is configured to automatically execute a steering maneuver to move the host vehicle into the lane adjacent to the host vehicle, in response to identifying that the lane adjacent to the host vehicle is free of other vehicles, as taught by Choi. The motivation for doing so would be to “increase vehicle occupant safety,” as recognized by Choi (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 12, Nakaya and Seo teach the vehicle control system of claim 1.
Yet Nakaya and Seo do not explicitly further teach:
The vehicle control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicle control system is configured to:
determine the vehicle relative lateral acceleration by monitoring lateral acceleration relative to a vehicle lane of travel;
determine the vehicle lane crossing index by counting a number of occurrences of crossing a lane boundary of the vehicle lane of travel;
determine the vehicle lane centering index by measuring an average vehicle distance a center of the vehicle lane of travel; and
determine the vehicle traffic rules violation index by determining at least a degree of vehicle speeding with respect to a speed limit of the vehicle lane of travel.
However, Choi teaches:
determine the vehicle relative lateral acceleration by monitoring lateral acceleration relative to a vehicle lane of travel (see Choi paragraph 0009);
determine the vehicle lane crossing index by counting a number of occurrences of crossing a lane boundary of the vehicle lane of travel (see Choi paragraph 0009);
determine the vehicle lane centering index by measuring an average vehicle distance a center of the vehicle lane of travel (see Choi paragraph 0026); and
determine the vehicle traffic rules violation index by determining at least a degree of vehicle speeding with respect to a speed limit of the vehicle lane of travel (see Choi paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Nakaya and Seo, to add the additional features of determine the vehicle relative lateral acceleration by monitoring lateral acceleration relative to a vehicle lane of travel; determine the vehicle lane crossing index by counting a number of occurrences of crossing a lane boundary of the vehicle lane of travel; determine the vehicle lane centering index by measuring an average vehicle distance a center of the vehicle lane of travel; and determine the vehicle traffic rules violation index by determining at least a degree of vehicle speeding with respect to a speed limit of the vehicle lane of travel, as taught by Choi. The motivation for doing so would be to identify and then avoid an erratically driven vehicle, as recognized by Choi (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
The examiner submits that Nakaya at least strongly teaches towards what Choi more explicitly teaches. Choi has been cited because Choi teaches the limitations more explicitly.
Regarding claim 19 see the rejection for claim 6 which is substantially similar.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (KR20200092462A) teaches a system that determines when there is a high risk along a route and then determines if there is a lower risk route for the vehicle to take. Lee teaches on page 3 of the attached English translation determining setting a route based on not only an “accident section” or “traffic jam section” but also “dangerous vehicles (high-risk drivers)” on a route. See page 6 for a system that “analyzes the risk of” not only the “currently set route” but also “the currently [set] driving lane”. The system “calculates what the route with the lowest risk is and determines whether to change route based on the risk level.” See page 6 for determining “a high-risk vehicle with a lot of accident history or a speeding heavy truck” is driving near the host vehicle. The system can analyze the speed, centered driving, vehicle type, and vehicle size. See page 7 for analyzing how close a vehicle gets to the host vehicle, whether it makes sudden stops. See page 7 for “the risk analysis unit 160 examines both the history of road accidents and the history of road accidents [sic], as well as the topography…of the roads being driven”. This may be for a section of “for example, 100 meters”. It appears from page 6 that Lee contemplates using the fact that a single high risk vehicle is on a route as reason enough to categorize that road portion as a high risk road portion. Yet page 9 teaches that an “overall distribution of the vehicle[s] in the section” can be calculated and “the risk is calculated” based on that. This could mean, counting the number of vehicles in that section, and not taking an average of them, but the teaching is very close to the present claim 1.
Yet Lee does not teach, as present claim 1 does, “determining…an average number of determined vehicles exceeding the specified threshold value during a specified period of time”.
Zhang et al. (CN111985749A). See page 7 of the attached English translation for a system that counts “the number of vehicles passing through a specific road section. See page 7 for determining “the number of vehicle[s] passes in the statistical period” and “the number of dangerous driving behaviors”. See page 7 for determining “the number of dangerous driving behaviors corresponding to the plurality of target road segments within a statistical time period so that each target road segment can obtain a dangerous driving behavior index”. See page 10 for determining “an average number of dangerous driving behaviors occurring in each vehicle within a unit distance”.
Unlike the present claim 1 that counts the average number of dangerous vehicles, Zhang counts the average number of dangerous actions. This is different, even if the difference is subtle.
Cheng (CN114179792A) teaches determining in S10 a “first driving route” based on “first driving data” and then obtaining a “second driving route” based on “second driving data”. Some of these route may include “dangerous vehicles in the first area”. Avoidance routes can be generated to avoid the dangerous vehicles. Displaying is not explicitly taught but implied since the system runs on “a smart phone terminal” or “vehicle-mounted computing equipment”. The disclosure does not teach an average number of dangerous vehicles in an area over time, as in present claim 1.
Hashimoto et al. (JP2025/179321A) which teaches displaying a “first route” and a “second route”. The second route “avoids at least one of the dangerous points…that exist on the first route.” These are displayed on a user’s terminal. However, Hashimoto is not prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665