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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 4/18/2025 has been acknowledged.
Status of Application
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 20-22 are pending.
Claims 12 and 23 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 8 and 15-19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, and 20 have been amended.
Claim 4 has been withdrawn from consideration due to an “Election of Species” but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 2/23/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 2/23/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 8 and 15-19 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “achieve a consistent stopping distance” and the metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear. What is the stopping distance consistent with? Does this mean that the vehicle merely stops before the intersection, or a set amount before the intersection, or does this mean it can consistently stop before the intersection? When the Office looks into the specification, the phrase is repeated thus what exactly is meant is unclear. As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any stopping before the intersection as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (United States Patent Publication 2021/0261132) in view of Ohmura et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0339080) and in further view of Ben Shalom (United States Patent Publication2016/0318490)
With respect to Claim 1: While Oka discloses “A vehicular driving assist system” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 and Figure 1];
“the vehicular driving assist system comprising: a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driving assist system” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027];
“the camera viewing at least forward of the vehicle and operable to capture image data” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027];
“a radar sensor disposed at the vehicle” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027];
“the radar sensor sensing at least forward of the vehicle and operable to capture sensor data” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027];
“wherein a field of sensing of the radar sensor at least partially overlaps a field of view of the camera” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027];
“an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027 with Figure 1];
“wherein image data captured by the camera and sensor data captured by the radar sensor are transferred to and are processed at the ECU” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027 with Figure 1];
“wherein the vehicular driving assist system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU, determines lane markers of a road along which the vehicle is traveling” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027 with Figure 1];
“wherein, with the vehicle approaching an intersection, the vehicular driving assist system, based at least in part on processing at the ECU of (i) image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU and (ii) sensor data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU, determines that an object is traveling along a traffic lane that intersects with a traffic lane the vehicle is traveling along” [Oka, ¶ 0043, 0053-0057 with Figure 8];
“wherein, with the vehicle approaching the location and prior to the vehicle arriving at the location, the vehicular driving assist system, responsive to determining that the object is traveling along the traffic lane that intersects with the traffic lane the vehicle is traveling along, determines a time to collision (TTC) between the vehicle and the object at the at a predicted collision location in the location” [Oka, ¶ 0043, 0053-0057 with Figure 8];
“and wherein, with the vehicle approaching the location and prior to the vehicle arriving at the location, the vehicular driving assist system, responsive at least in part to determining the TTC between the vehicle and the object at the predicted collision location is below a threshold amount of time” [Oka, ¶ 0043, 0045, 0052-0057];
“(i) generates location data defining a location of the intersection relative to the vehicle based on the determined lane markers and” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027, 0043, 0049 with Figures 31, 3b and 8];
“(ii) determines a deceleration profile for a braking command to halt the vehicle at a stop position in the intersection based on the generated location of the location to achieve a consistent stopping distance” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027, 0043, 0049];
Oka does not specifically state that the stopping before intersections, rather locations before and within an intersection or that the vehicle is topped before an intersection based on TTC, rather, while in intersections.
Ohmura, which is also an vehicle control system with object identification within intersections teaches “wherein, with the vehicle approaching the intersection and prior to the vehicle arriving at the intersection, the vehicular driving assist system, responsive to determining that the object is traveling along the traffic lane that intersects with the traffic lane the vehicle is traveling along, determines a time to collision (TTC) between the vehicle and the object at the at a predicted collision location in the intersection” [Ohmura, ¶ 0090, 0098-0104, with Figure 5];
“and wherein, with the vehicle approaching the intersection and prior to the vehicle arriving at the intersection, the vehicular driving assist system, responsive at least in part to determining the TTC between the vehicle and the object at the predicted collision location is below a threshold amount of time, generates a braking command to slow the vehicle prior to the vehicle arriving at the intersection” [Ohmura, ¶ 0090, 0098-0104, with Figure 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ohmura into the invention of Oka to not only include identifying objects based on sensor data for vehicle control in intersections as Oka discloses but to also stop a vehicle before an intersection based on TTC as taught by Ohmura with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ohmura into Oka to create a more robust system that prevent collisions before entering intersections [Ohmura, Abstract] thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control with TTC determinations around intersections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Ben Shalom, which is also an vehicle control system with object identification within intersections teaches “(i) generates Cartesian coordinates defining a location of the intersection relative to the vehicle based on the determined lane markers and” [Ben Shalom, ¶ 0006, 0056, 0129, 0131, 0175, 0201 0228-0229, and 269-0270];
(ii) determines a deceleration profile for a braking command to halt the vehicle at a stop position just prior to the intersection based on the generated Cartesian coordinates of the intersection to achieve a consistent stopping distance” [Ben Shalom, ¶ 0006, 0056, 0129, 0131, 0175, 0201 0228-0229, and 269-0270].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ben Shalom into the invention of Oka to not only include identifying objects based on sensor data for vehicle control in intersections as Oka discloses but to also stop a vehicle before an intersection based on a coordinate system and lane lines as taught by Ben Shalom with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ben Shalom into Oka to create a more robust system that prevent collisions before entering intersections [Ben Shalom ¶ 0229] thus increasing safety. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control with TTC determinations around intersections and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines the TTC based on a predicted trajectory of the object and a predicted trajectory of the vehicle” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8].
With respect to Claim 5: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines a plurality of objects traveling along respective traffic lanes that intersect with the traffic lane the vehicle is traveling along” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8];
“and wherein the vehicular driving assist system selects a subset of the plurality of objects based on a likelihood of collision of each object of the plurality of objects with the vehicle” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8].
With respect to Claim 6: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 5, wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines the TTC between the vehicle and each object of the subset of objects” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8].
With respect to Claim 7: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 5, wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines the likelihood of collision with each respective object of the plurality of objects based on at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a velocity of the respective object, (ii) a trajectory of the respective object and (iii) a location of the respective object relative to the vehicle” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8].
With respect to Claim 11: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assist system fuses (i) image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU and (ii) sensor data captured by the radar sensor and transferred to the ECU, and wherein the fused image data and sensor data is processed at the ECU” [Oka, ¶ 0025-0027 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 13: Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assist system, responsive to determining the TTC between the vehicle and the object at the intersection, generates an alert for a driver of the vehicle” [Oka, ¶ 0032 and 0041].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (United States Patent Publication 2021/0261132), in view of Ohmura et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0339080), in view of Ben Shalom (United States Patent Publication2016/0318490), and in further view of Silver et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0224850).
With respect to Claim 3: While Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assist system determines the TTC between the vehicle and the object at the predicted collision location” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8];
“after the vehicular driving assist system repeatedly detects the object” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8];
Oka does not specifically state that the objects are detected for a threshold period of time, rather the Oka continuously detects objects and controls the vehicle accordingly.
Silver, which is also an vehicle control system with object identification, teaches “detects the object for at least a threshold period of time” [Silver, ¶ 0005-0007 and claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Silver into the invention of Oka to not only include identifying objects based on sensor data for vehicle control as Oka discloses but to also use time amounts for object identification as taught by Silver with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Silver into Oka to create a more robust system that can also account for background or stationary objects [Silver, Claim 1]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control with TTC determinations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9-10 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (United States Patent Publication 2021/0261132) in view of Ohmura et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0339080), in view of Ben Shalom (United States Patent Publication2016/0318490), and in further view of Limbacher (United States Patent Publication 2019/0210604).
With respect to Claims 9-10: While Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 8, wherein the vehicular driving assist system halting the vehicle at the stop position, and keeping the vehicle stopped” [Oka, ¶ 0053-0057 with Figure 8].
Oka does not specifically state the driver taking over control or how.
Limbacher, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “keeps the vehicle stopped until a driver of the vehicle performs a takeover maneuver” [Limbacher, ¶ 0018];
“wherein the takeover maneuver comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) actuating a brake pedal and (ii) actuating an acceleration pedal” [Limbacher, ¶ 0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Limbacher into the invention of Oka to not only slowing the vehicle automatically before intersections as Oka discloses but to also have a the driver take over in situations, by notifying them and having the driver use the brake pedal as taught by Limbacher with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Limbacher into Oka to create a more robust system that allows for a driver to take over in a safe manner at intersections. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of driver take over in intersection situations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 20-22: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13. The system taught/disclosed in Claims 20-22 can clearly perform as the system of Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13. Therefore Claims 20-22 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Oka (United States Patent Publication 2021/0261132) in view of Ohmura et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0339080), in view of Ben Shalom (United States Patent Publication2016/0318490), and in further view of Foerster et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0265418).
With respect to Claim 14: While Oka discloses “The vehicular driving assist system of claim 13, wherein the alert comprises an alert, and wherein the vehicular driving assist system generates the alert” [Oka, ¶ 0032 and 0041];
Oka does not specifically state the alert is a haptic alert or that it is based on intermittent braking.
Foerster, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “wherein the alert comprises a haptic alert” [Forester, ¶ 0002 and 0020];
“and wherein the vehicular driving assist system generates the haptic alert based on intermittent braking of the vehicle” [Forester, ¶ 0002 and 0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Forester into the invention of Oka to not only include warning and alerts when the vehicle is being controlled as Oka discloses but to also include haptic alerts when braking is being carried out as taught by Foerster with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Foerster into Oka to create a more robust system that alert of user of needed braking [Foerster, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements emergency braking during possible collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c