DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on February 10, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 4, and 6 have been amended. Claims 7-8 were added. No claims were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10832571) in view of Ishioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210139044) and in further view of Shimamori (U.S. Patent No. 9858815).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada, et al. teaches: An in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to acquire traffic congestion information for each lane of a road having a plurality of lanes (Col. 10, lines 40-46: "The tail position calculation unit (25) [processor] calculates a tail position of a traffic congestion of probe vehicles (10) [in-vehicle device], based on the probe information after the map matching. The tail position calculation unit (25) [processor] calculates a traffic congestion tail position on the upstream side of a branch point at which a lane branches into a plurality of lanes [acquiring traffic congestion for each lane on road with plurality of lanes].")
the acquired traffic congestion information including current first information and second information of the same day of the week and the same time in the past, (Col. 6, lines 43-49: "…the traffic congestion tail position [based from processor] being calculated based on probe information, including information of a time within a predetermined time period and a position of the corresponding probe vehicle at the time [current first information and second past information]")
and guide the vehicle to another lane based on the acquired traffic congestion information (Fig. 1, Col. 8, lines 57-65: "The server (20) receives probe information from probe vehicles (10) [in-vehicle device], and calculates, based on the received probe information, a lane-change recommendation section which allows a safety lane change when traffic congestion occurs. The server (20) provides information of the calculated lane-change recommendation section to the target vehicle (30) which receives safety driving assistance or to the driver of the target vehicle (30) through a network (40) and a wireless base station (42) [guide vehicle to another lane based on acquired traffic congestion information].")
Yamada, et al. does not teach wherein the guidance of the vehicle is cancelled when the vehicle travels within a predetermined section from an exit in a first lane that leads to the exit from the road.
In a similar field of endeavor (lane travel vehicle control system), Ishioka teaches: wherein the guidance of the vehicle is cancelled when the vehicle travels within a predetermined section from an exit in a first lane that leads to the exit from the road (Fig. 3, Paragraph [0054]: "When the position of the own vehicle M is within a second section in front of the first section, the action plan generator (123) constrains the own vehicle M from passing a preceding vehicle. The second section is a section located in front of and having a second predetermined distance from the first section [processor cancels the traffic congestion guidance information]." ; Paragraph [0052]: "…vehicle arrives within a predetermined distance in front of a switching spot of the recommended lane (which may be determined in accordance with a type of event), the action plan generator (123) activates a […] branching event [processor initiates exit in first lane that leads to exit from road]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada, et al. to include the teaching of Ishioka based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of constraining a vehicle to travel in the optimal lane in order to properly exit the road (e.g., a branching lane) with respect to congestion levels (Ishioka Paragraph [0007]).
The combination of Yamada, et al. and Ishioka does not teach the predetermined section having a distance from the exit that is shorter than a maximum distance of traffic congestion from the exit, the maximum distance of the traffic congestion being a value acquired from the second information.
In a similar field of endeavor (determining congestion location information), Shimamori teaches: the predetermined section having a distance from the exit that is shorter than a maximum distance of traffic congestion from the exit, the maximum distance of the traffic congestion being a value acquired from the second information (Col. 18, lines 33-43: "…when the current travel state meets a specific travel condition (YES at (S210)), determination is made as to whether or not the path point of the time that is the latest in time out of path points in the travel data included in the congestion location information selected at step (S204) (namely, the path point in the travel data at the latest time included in the congestion location information) (also referred to as the "latest path point" hereafter) meets a specific notification subject condition [predetermined section in congestion value]" ; Col. 18, lines 56-64: "(iii) the displacement distance between the position represented by the latest path point and the current position of the vehicle itself is a specific minimum distance or greater (for example, a distance that would be reached within a specific time (for example, 5 seconds) by the vehicle itself at the current vehicle speed, or greater) and is a specific maximum distance or less [shorter than a maximum distance of traffic congestion]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, et al. and Ishioka to include the teaching of Shimamori based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of notifying a driver of the presence of congestion (Shimamori Col. 1, lines 19-28).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The in-vehicle device according to claim 1, the executable instructions further cause the processor to: determine whether the traffic congestion has occurred partway through the first lane toward the exit; (Yamada, et al. Fig. 8, Col. 14, lines 50-53: "…the road link (56) near the traffic congestion tail position is somewhat congested with vehicles that intend to safely follow the traffic congestion tail position [processor determines that traffic congestion occurs partway through first lane toward exit].")
and guide the vehicle traveling outside the predetermined section from the first lane to a second lane in response to the determination that the traffic congestion has occurred partway through the first lane toward the exit (Yamada, et al. Fig. 8, Col. 14, lines 50-62: "…the road link (56) near the traffic congestion tail position is somewhat congested with vehicles that intend to safely follow the traffic congestion tail position [processor determines that traffic congestion occurs partway through first lane toward exit]. […] However, the recommendation section calculation unit (26) searches for a non-congested section, and calculates a lane-change recommendation section based on the non-congested section [processor guides, from first lane to second lane, vehicle traveling outside predetermined section].").
Regarding claim 4, Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to: determine whether the traffic congestion has occurred partway through the first lane toward the exit based on the first information (Yamada, et al. Fig. 8, Col. 14, lines 50-53: "…the road link (56) near the traffic congestion tail position is somewhat congested with vehicles that intend to safely follow the traffic congestion tail position [processor determines that traffic congestion occurs partway through first lane toward exit].")
determine whether the traffic congestion has occurred in the past based on the second information; (Yamada, et al. Col. 12, lines 31-39: "…tail position calculation unit (25) [processor] calculates a traffic congestion tail position located upstream of the branch point (55), based on the probe information indicating the movement locus of each probe vehicle (10) stored in the locus information accumulation unit (23) (S3). For example, the tail position calculation unit (25) calculates a traffic congestion tail position from probe information of probe vehicles (10) that have traveled on the freeway (50) within a predetermined time period (e.g., 15 minutes) [gathers information about past traffic congestion from previously stored data over time period - second information].")
and guide the vehicle traveling outside the predetermined section from the first lane to a second lane in response to the determination that the traffic congestion has occurred in the past, even if the processor determines that the traffic congestion has not occurred partway through the first lane toward the exit (Yamada, et al. Col. 12, lines 31-39: "The tail position calculation unit (25) [processor] calculates a traffic congestion tail position located upstream of the branch point (55), based on the probe information indicating the movement locus of each probe vehicle (10) stored in the locus information accumulation unit (23) (S3) [guides vehicle from first lane to second lane]. For example, the tail position calculation unit (25) calculates a traffic congestion tail position from probe information of probe vehicles (10) that have traveled on the freeway (50) within a predetermined time period (e.g., 15 minutes) [gathers information about past traffic congestion from previously stored data over time period; even if not currently in congestion in exact location].").
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10832571), Ishioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210139044), and Shimamori (U.S. Patent No. 9858815) in view of Chikamori, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220223038).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yamada, et al, Ishioka, and Shimamori does not teach wherein the second information is of the same day of the week and at the same time from one or more previous weeks.
In a similar field of endeavor (lane congestion vehicle control system), Chikamori, et al. teaches: The in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the second information is of the same day of the week and at the same time from one or more previous weeks (Paragraph [0064]: "…A waiting-for-entrance traffic congestion substantially certainly occurs at the same time on the same day of the week [same day of the week and same time]" ; Paragraph [0065]: "…probe information (travel history information) representing the traveling status of a vehicle is uploaded from each vehicle to the map server (3). The probe information includes lane information on each lane on which the vehicle has traveled and congestion information indicating whether or not congestion has occurred in the lane, in addition to information records of the position and speed of the vehicle at each time [historical records - previous information]." ; Paragraph [0071]: "…map server identifies a (3) position of a starting point of a waiting-for-entrance congestion that occurs periodically, a lane where the waiting for-entrance congestion occurs, a congestion section (congestion length) of the waiting-for-entrance congestion, and a day of a week and a time (time zone) when the waiting-for entrance congestion occurs [day of week and time data].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori to include the teaching of Chikamori, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the management of vehicle congestion in a lane at a repeated interval of time (Chikamori, et al. Paragraph [0007]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10832571), Ishioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210139044), and Shimamori (U.S. Patent No. 9858815) in view of Patou (U.S. Patent No. 11892315)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori does not teach the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined section is calculated by multiplying the maximum distance of the traffic congestion by a predetermined ratio having a value of 0.9 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor (congestion prediction), Patou teaches: The in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined section is calculated by multiplying the maximum distance of the traffic congestion by a predetermined ratio having a value of 0.9 or less (Col. 8, lines 3-14: "One record of the congestion prediction information database (325) includes a congestion occurrence section [congestion information], […] a congestion distance, […] The congestion distance is the information indicating the length of the congestion occurrence section [congestion distance]." ; Col. 8, lines 39-43: "In a time period t and a section s, the number of the vehicles (5) for which the weighting factor is the first weighting factor Wh is referred to as n_h[t,s]. The time period t indicates, for example, a preset duration such as five minutes or ten minutes [weighing factor to multiply]." ; Col. 9, lines 45-52: "The value of the congestion occurrence probability in the time period t and the section s is referred to as P[t,s]. The congestion prediction unit (354) calculates the congestion occurrence probability P[t,s] based on a ratio of the congestion determination value T[t,s] to the congestion reference value T.sub.thresh. The congestion occurrence probability P[t,s] [predetermined ratio calculation as a function of distance] is determined based on expressions (8)-(14) below, for example." ; Col. 9, line 64: "When 1.8T.sub.thresh≤T[t,s]<2T.sub.thresh,P[t,s]=90% [value of 0.9 or less]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori to include the teaching of Patou based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing congestion of a scheduled route to a driver (Patou Col. 1, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada, et al., Ishioka, Shimamori, and Patou remain as applied to claim 7, and in a further embodiment, teach: The in-vehicle device according to claim 7, wherein the predetermined ratio has a value of 0.9 (Patou Col. 9, lines 50-64: "The congestion occurrence probability P[t,s] [predetermined ratio] is determined based on expressions (8)-(14) below, for example […]. When 1.8T.sub.thresh≤T[t,s]<2T.sub.thresh,P[t,s]=90% [has value of 0.9]").
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10832571) in view of Ishioka (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210139044) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “the predetermined section having a distance from the exit that is shorter than a maximum distance of traffic congestion from the exit, the maximum distance of the traffic congestion being a value acquired from the second information”. Please note that Shimamori (U.S. Patent No. 9858815) was cited in order to teach these features. In Shimamori, the predetermined section of a congestion value is determined through the process of identifying “when the current travel state meets a specific travel condition (YES at (S210)), determination is made as to whether or not the path point of the time that is the latest in time out of path points in the travel data included in the congestion location information selected at step (S204) (namely, the path point in the travel data at the latest time included in the congestion location information) (also referred to as the "latest path point" hereafter) meets a specific notification subject condition” (Col. 18, lines 33-43). Subsequently, the determination of the predetermined distance being shorter than a maximum distance of the traffic congestion is identified as “(iii) the displacement distance between the position represented by the latest path point and the current position of the vehicle itself is a specific minimum distance or greater (for example, a distance that would be reached within a specific time (for example, 5 seconds) by the vehicle itself at the current vehicle speed, or greater) and is a specific maximum distance or less” (Col. 18, lines 56-64). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Shimamori with Yamada, et al. and Ishioka because Yamada, et al. teaches a device which contains traffic congestion information for the purpose of guiding the vehicle to another lane (Col. 10, lines 40-46, Fig., 1, Col. 8, lines 57-65) and Ishioka teaches the condition in which the vehicle congestion guidance is cancelled when a vehicle travels within a predetermined section related to an exit from the road (Fig. 3, Paragraphs [0054], [0052]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Yamada, et al., Ishioka, and Shimamori reads on the claim limitation “the predetermined section having a distance from the exit that is shorter than a maximum distance of traffic congestion from the exit, the maximum distance of the traffic congestion being a value acquired from the second information”, as stated in amended claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umeda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190278285) teaches a process in which a vehicle can track another vehicle in front of the own vehicle and conduct a lane changing event in which the own vehicle can change lanes from an own lane to an adjacent lane and a conduct a branching event in which the own vehicle can branch from a branching spot of a road to a destination side lane based on a lane recognizer.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663