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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascheka et al. (U.S. 2016/0229409 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2018/0274934 A1) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. 2020/0312138 A1).
Claim 1, Pascheka teaches:
A first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 10, Paragraph [0018], One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any vehicle with at least one vehicle in front of it, e.g. 11 of Fig. 1, and also includes the towbar, is interpretable as a first vehicle.) comprising:
a memory (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 13) configured to store first vehicle information comprising a plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles associated with the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method. Each vehicle is configured to operate one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode, wherein each mode is related to an acceleration of the vehicle (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the data required to both operate and identify the accelerations, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profiles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the computer program code to include the necessary code for operating one of the plurality of modes.), wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0019] and [0022], The first, second, and third modes, associated with respective types of acceleration, are determined based on data surrounding the ego vehicle, e.g. other vehicles operating in the vicinity of the ego vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the modes and their respective types of acceleration to be applicable to a plurality of drivers of the same vehicle, because the selected mode is independent of the driver.);
a transceiver (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 4, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art, at the time of filing, to integrate the wireless transmitting unit 4 and the wireless receiving unit 4 into a single device, i.e. a transceiver. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that the Pascheka reference discloses a transmitting/receiving unit 4 (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0032]).) configured to:
receive real-time traffic signal information of a traffic light, wherein the real-time traffic signal information comprises a green light duration associated with a green phase of the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0018], The traffic light system 1 transmits a wireless signal S1 which informs the vehicles when the next green phase will start and when it will end.); and
receive second vehicle information associated with a second vehicle located in front of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 11, 12, Paragraph [0019], The ego vehicle 10 receives wireless signals S11 and S12 from vehicles 11 and 12, respectively, which are in front of ego vehicle 10.), wherein the second vehicle information comprises a first time duration for the second vehicle to cross the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0020], Based on the presence of the vehicles, e.g. vehicles 11 and 12, as determined by their respective signals S11 and S12, the ego vehicle 10 determines a characteristic variable, which represents a duration until the predefined vehicle(s) reaches the traffic light system. The time values may also be received by the ego vehicle 10 via a back-end server (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0021]). The combination of signals from vehicles 11 and 12 with the time values from back-end server regarding other vehicles is interpreted as second vehicle information.);
a processor (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 3) communicatively coupled to the transceiver (Pascheka, Fig. 2), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain the real-time traffic signal information associated with the green light duration, the second vehicle information and the first vehicle information (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0019-0021], The method of Pascheka is carried out by the evaluation unit 3 via computer program code stored in memory 13.);
estimate a second time duration required by the first vehicle to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, including the first historical rate of change of speed profile or the second historical rate of change of speed profile, and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The ego vehicle 10 determines the time value for the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system. The time duration is based on a combination of acceleration information, i.e. first vehicle information, and the presence of other vehicles in front of the ego vehicle, i.e. second vehicle information.);
compare the second time duration with the green light duration (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is compared with the value for the likely duration of the green phase of the traffic light system.);
determine a probability of the first vehicle crossing the traffic light in the green light duration based on the comparison (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The likelihood, i.e. the probability, of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system in a green phase is higher if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is shorter than the likely duration of the green phase. The likelihood is lower if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is greater than the likely duration of the green phase.); and
transmit a control signal indicative of the probability (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The ego vehicle operates in a specific mode based on the likelihood of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system during a green phase.).
Pascheka does not specifically teach:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver; and
transmit a notification to indicate the probability.
Agrawal teaches:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver (Agrawal, Fig. 2: 202, Paragraph [0026], Each input 202 includes driver and vehicle history data, driver profiles (with data pertaining to speed, acceleration, steering position, etc.). The driver/participant profiles are used to create participant temporal driving skill models for given landscapes and environmental factors (see Agrawal, Paragraphs [0019-0020]). Furthermore, predictive labels are created for each driver, e.g. “fast” and “aggressive” (see Agrawal, Paragraph [[0027]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of driver profiles as taught by Agrawal.
The motivation would be to improve passenger safety by utilizing driver data (see Agrawal, Paragraph [0015]).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal does not specifically teach:
Transmit a notification to indicate the probability.
Kurehashi teaches:
Transmit a notification to indicate the probability (Kurehashi, Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0039-0040] and [0064], As indicated by the arrows between driving assistance control unit 10 and display unit 51 and audio output unit 52, respectively, the driving assistance control unit 10 controls, i.e. transmits a notification to, the display unit 51 and audio output unit 52 on whether to accelerate or decelerate, which is indicative of the probability that the vehicle will make or not make a green light.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of a display and audio output unit, as taught by Kurehashi.
The motivation would be to provide driver assistance information to a driver in order to pass through a green light of an intersection or applying deceleration of the vehicle if the green light cannot be made (see Kurehashi, Paragraph [0039]).
Claim 2, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first vehicle information further comprises one or more of: a first vehicle weight, a first vehicle length, a first vehicle tire condition, or a first vehicle propulsion type (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each vehicle equipped with the electronic towbar to know its length, e.g. 6 m, based on a known average vehicle length. The Examiner notes that the claim does not further recite functional language that utilizes or manipulates a first vehicle weight, a first vehicle length, a first vehicle tire condition, or a first vehicle propulsion type.).
Claim 3, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 1, wherein the second vehicle information further comprises one or more of: a first distance the second vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light, a second vehicle propulsion type, or a second vehicle position in a vehicle queue in proximity to the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0018] and [0021], The ego vehicle receives a signal from other vehicles in front of it that have the electronic towbar. Therefore, if only one vehicle transmits its signal to the ego vehicle, e.g. vehicle 2 transmitting signal S12 to vehicle 11, then the vehicle 11 is able to determine that only one transmitting vehicle is in front of it, wherein the position in the queue of the one vehicle is the first position.).
Claim 9, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 1 further comprises a detection unit configured to capture images of a geographical area in proximity to a first vehicle front portion (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 7, Paragraph [0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for an optical front camera 7, placed at the top of an ego vehicle 10, to be capable of capturing images or video of an area in proximity to the front of the ego vehicle 10.).
Claim 11, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that the probability to cross the traffic light is greater than a predefined threshold when the second time duration is less than the green light duration, and the probability to cross the traffic light is less than a predefined threshold when the second time duration is greater than the green light duration (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], If the likely duration until passing through the traffic light system is less than the duration of the green phase, then the ego vehicle is likely to pass during the green phase, wherein the likeliness of passing represents a condition that is greater than a threshold. If the likely duration until passing through the traffic light system considerably exceeds the likely time of the green phase, the unlikeliness of passing represents a condition that is less than a threshold. For example, if it is likely for the ego vehicle to pass the green phase, a first mode (“rapid starting”) is selected because there is little to no risk of a necessity to decelerate, whereas if it is unlikely for the ego vehicle to pass the green phase, a third mode (“slow starting”) is selected to avoid rapid acceleration and deceleration.).
Claim 12, Pascheka teaches:
A method performed by a first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 10, Paragraph [0018], One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any vehicle with at least one vehicle in front of it, e.g. 11 of Fig. 1, and also includes the towbar, is interpretable as a first vehicle.) comprising:
obtaining, by a processor (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 3), information associated with a green light duration associated with a green phase of a traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0018], The traffic light system 1 transmits a wireless signal S1 which informs the vehicles when the next green phase will start and when it will end.), first vehicle information associated with the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method. Each vehicle is configured to operate one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode, wherein each mode is related to an acceleration of the vehicle (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the data required to both operate and identify the acceleration, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profile. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the computer program code to include the necessary code for operating one of the plurality of modes.), and second vehicle information associated with a second vehicle located in front of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 11, 12, Paragraph [0019], The ego vehicle 10 receives wireless signals S11 and S12 from vehicles 11 and 12, respectively, which are in front of ego vehicle 10.), wherein:
the first vehicle information comprises a plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles associated with the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method. Each vehicle is configured to operate one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode, wherein each mode is related to an acceleration of the vehicle (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the data required to both operate and identify the accelerations, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profiles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the computer program code to include the necessary code for operating one of the plurality of modes.), wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0019] and [0022], The first, second, and third modes, associated with respective types of acceleration, are determined based on data surrounding the ego vehicle, e.g. other vehicles operating in the vicinity of the ego vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the modes and their respective types of acceleration to be applicable to a plurality of drivers of the same vehicle, because the selected mode is independent of the driver.), and
the second vehicle information comprises a first time duration for the second vehicle to cross the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0020], Based on the presence of the vehicles, e.g. vehicles 11 and 12, as determined by their respective signals S11 and S12, the ego vehicle 10 determines a characteristic variable, which represents a duration until the predefined vehicle(s) reaches the traffic light system. The time values may also be received by the ego vehicle 10 via a back-end server (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0021]). The combination of signals from vehicles 11 and 12 with the time values from back-end server regarding other vehicles is interpreted as second vehicle information.);
estimating, by the processor, a second time duration required by the first vehicle to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, including the first historical rate of change of speed profile or the second historical rate of change of speed profile and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The ego vehicle 10 determines the time value for the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system. The time duration is based on a combination of acceleration information, i.e. first vehicle information, and the presence of other vehicles in front of the ego vehicle, i.e. second vehicle information.);
comparing, by the processor, the second time duration with the green light duration (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is compared with the value for the likely duration of the green phase of the traffic light system.);
determining, by the processor, a probability of the first vehicle crossing the traffic light in the green light duration based on the comparison (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The likelihood, i.e. the probability, of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system in a green phase is higher if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is shorter than the likely duration of the green phase. The likelihood is lower if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is greater than the likely duration of the green phase.); and
transmitting, by the processor, a control signal indicative of the probability (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The ego vehicle operates in a specific mode based on the likelihood of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system during a green phase.).
Pascheka does not specifically teach:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver; and
transmitting, by the processor, a notification to indicate the probability.
Agrawal teaches:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver (Agrawal, Fig. 2: 202, Paragraph [0026], Each input 202 includes driver and vehicle history data, driver profiles (with data pertaining to speed, acceleration, steering position, etc.). The driver/participant profiles are used to create participant temporal driving skill models for given landscapes and environmental factors (see Agrawal, Paragraphs [0019-0020]). Furthermore, predictive labels are created for each driver, e.g. “fast” and “aggressive” (see Agrawal, Paragraph [[0027]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of driver profiles as taught by Agrawal.
The motivation would be to improve passenger safety by utilizing driver data (see Agrawal, Paragraph [0015]).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal does not specifically teach:
Transmitting, by the processor, a notification to indicate the probability.
Kurehashi teaches:
Transmitting a notification to indicate the probability (Kurehashi, Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0039-0040] and [0064], As indicated by the arrows between driving assistance control unit 10 and display unit 51 and audio output unit 52, respectively, the driving assistance control unit 10 controls, i.e. transmits a notification to, the display unit 51 and audio output unit 52 on whether to accelerate or decelerate, which is indicative of the probability that the vehicle will make or not make a green light.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of a display and audio output unit, as taught by Kurehashi.
The motivation would be to provide driver assistance information to a driver in order to pass through a green light of an intersection or applying deceleration of the vehicle if the green light cannot be made (see Kurehashi, Paragraph [0039]).
Claim 13, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the first vehicle information further comprises one or more of: a first vehicle weight, a first vehicle length, a first vehicle tire condition, or a first vehicle propulsion type (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for each vehicle equipped with the electronic towbar to know its length, e.g. 6 m, based on a known average vehicle length. The Examiner notes that the claim does not further recite functional language that utilizes or manipulates a first vehicle weight, a first vehicle length, a first vehicle tire condition, or a first vehicle propulsion type.).
Claim 14, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The method of claim 12, wherein the second vehicle information further comprises one or more of: a first distance the second vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light, a second vehicle propulsion type, or a second vehicle position in a vehicle queue in proximity to the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0018] and [0021], The ego vehicle receives a signal from other vehicles in front of it that have the electronic towbar. Therefore, if only one vehicle transmits its signal to the ego vehicle, e.g. vehicle 2 transmitting signal S12 to vehicle 11, then the vehicle 11 is able to determine that only one transmitting vehicle is in front of it, wherein the position in the queue of the one vehicle is the first position.).
Claim 20, Pascheka teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Pascheka, Fig. 2: 13) storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method.) result in performing operations comprising:
obtaining information associated with a green light duration associated with a green phase of a traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0018], The traffic light system 1 transmits a wireless signal S1 which informs the vehicles when the next green phase will start and when it will end.), first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 10, Paragraph [0018], One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any vehicle with at least one vehicle in front of it, e.g. 11 of Fig. 1, and also includes the towbar, is interpretable as a first vehicle.) information associated with a first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method. Each vehicle is configured to operate one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode, wherein each mode is related to an acceleration of the vehicle (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the data required to both operate and identify the acceleration, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profile. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the computer program code to include the necessary code for operating one of the plurality of modes.), and second vehicle information associated with a second vehicle located in front of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1: 11, 12, Paragraph [0019], The ego vehicle 10 receives wireless signals S11 and S12 from vehicles 11 and 12, respectively, which are in front of ego vehicle 10.), wherein:
the first vehicle information comprises a plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles associated with the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The memory 13 stores computer program code for carrying out the disclosed method. Each vehicle is configured to operate one of a plurality of modes, including a first mode, a second mode, and a third mode, wherein each mode is related to an acceleration of the vehicle (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0022]). Therefore, the data required to both operate and identify the accelerations, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profiles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the computer program code to include the necessary code for operating one of the plurality of modes.), wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0019] and [0022], The first, second, and third modes, associated with respective types of acceleration, are determined based on data surrounding the ego vehicle, e.g. other vehicles operating in the vicinity of the ego vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the modes and their respective types of acceleration to be applicable to a plurality of drivers of the same vehicle, because the selected mode is independent of the driver.), and the second vehicle information comprises a first time duration required by the second vehicle to cross the traffic light (Pascheka, Paragraph [0020], Based on the presence of the vehicles, e.g. vehicles 11 and 12, as determined by their respective signals S11 and S12, the ego vehicle 10 determines a characteristic variable, which represents a duration until the predefined vehicle(s) reaches the traffic light system. The time values may also be received by the ego vehicle 10 via a back-end server (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0021]). The combination of signals from vehicles 11 and 12 with the time values from back-end server regarding other vehicles is interpreted as second vehicle information.);
estimating a second time duration required by the first vehicle to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, including the first historical rate of change of speed profile or the second historical rate of change of speed profile, and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The ego vehicle 10 determines the time value for the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system. The time duration is based on a combination of acceleration information, i.e. first vehicle information, and the presence of other vehicles in front of the ego vehicle, i.e. second vehicle information.);
comparing the second time duration with the green light duration (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is compared with the value for the likely duration of the green phase of the traffic light system.);
determining a probability of the first vehicle crossing the traffic light in the green light duration based on the comparison (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The likelihood, i.e. the probability, of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system in a green phase is higher if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is shorter than the likely duration of the green phase. The likelihood is lower if the likely duration until the ego vehicle passes through the traffic light system is greater than the likely duration of the green phase.); and
transmitting a control signal indicative of the probability (Pascheka, Paragraphs [0021-0022], The ego vehicle operates in a specific mode based on the likelihood of the ego vehicle passing through the traffic light system during a green phase.).
Pascheka does not specifically teach:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver; and
transmitting a notification to indicate the probability.
Agrawal teaches:
Wherein the plurality of historical rate of change of speed profiles comprises a first historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a first driver and a second historical rate of change of speed profile indicative of historical rate of change of speed of the first vehicle driven by a second driver different than the first driver (Agrawal, Fig. 2: 202, Paragraph [0026], Each input 202 includes driver and vehicle history data, driver profiles (with data pertaining to speed, acceleration, steering position, etc.). The driver/participant profiles are used to create participant temporal driving skill models for given landscapes and environmental factors (see Agrawal, Paragraphs [0019-0020]). Furthermore, predictive labels are created for each driver, e.g. “fast” and “aggressive” (see Agrawal, Paragraph [[0027]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of driver profiles as taught by Agrawal.
The motivation would be to improve passenger safety by utilizing driver data (see Agrawal, Paragraph [0015]).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal does not specifically teach:
Transmitting a notification to indicate the probability.
Kurehashi teaches:
Transmitting a notification to indicate the probability (Kurehashi, Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0039-0040] and [0064], As indicated by the arrows between driving assistance control unit 10 and display unit 51 and audio output unit 52, respectively, the driving assistance control unit 10 controls, i.e. transmits a notification to, the display unit 51 and audio output unit 52 on whether to accelerate or decelerate, which is indicative of the probability that the vehicle will make or not make a green light.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka by integrating the teaching of a display and audio output unit, as taught by Kurehashi.
The motivation would be to provide driver assistance information to a driver in order to pass through a green light of an intersection or applying deceleration of the vehicle if the green light cannot be made (see Kurehashi, Paragraph [0039]).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascheka et al. (U.S. 2016/0229409 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2018/0274934 A1) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. 2020/0312138 A1) in view of Caballero De Ita et al. (U.S. 2018/0126995 A1).
Claim 4, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate a third distance the first vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Fig. 1: d, Paragraphs [0018] and [0020-0021]).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi does not specifically teach:
Determine a second distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; and
calculate a third distance the first vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, the second vehicle information, and the second distance.
Caballero De Ita teaches:
Determine a second distance (Caballero De Ita, Fig. 2: 210) between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Caballero De Ita, Paragraph [0019]); and
calculate a third distance the first vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, the second vehicle information, and the second distance (Caballero De Ita, Paragraph [0026], Based on the acceleration capabilities of each vehicle 101 in the queue, i.e. first and second vehicle information, and the spacing 210 between each vehicle, i.e. the second distance, the total distance from the traffic light 140 that a vehicle 101 can be in order to make a green light duration is calculated, wherein every vehicle 101 within the total distance is determined to move through the intersection 200. Thus, the distance from the traffic light 140 represents the range of distances that any vehicle 101 can travel in order to make an intersection 200 during a green light.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi by integrating the teaching of the measuring of distances between vehicles, as taught by Caballero De Ita.
The motivation would be further reduce delays due to reduced number of vehicles that may pass through a traffic light (see Caballero De Ita, Paragraph [0001]).
Claim 15, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi teaches:
The method of claim 14 further comprising: calculating a third distance the first vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Fig. 1: d, Paragraphs [0018] and [0020-0021]).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi does not specifically teach:
Determining a second distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; and
calculating a third distance the first vehicle has to travel to cross the traffic light based on the first vehicle information, the second vehicle information, and the second distance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi by integrating the teaching of the measuring of distances between vehicles, as taught by Caballero De Ita.
The motivation would be further reduce delays due to reduced number of vehicles that may pass through a traffic light (see Caballero De Ita, Paragraph [0001]).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascheka et al. (U.S. 2016/0229409 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2018/0274934 A1) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. 2020/0312138 A1), in view of Caballero De Ita et al. (U.S. 2018/0126995 A1), in view of JP2023501481A.
Claim 5, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to broadcast a wireless signal to a third vehicle located at a rear side of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0018-0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the ego vehicle 10 to include a towbar which enables it to transmit its own wireless signal, similar to signals S12 and S11 transmitted from vehicles 12 and 11, respectively, to a vehicle behind ego vehicle 10.).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita does not specifically teach:
Broadcast the third distance.
JP2023501481A teaches:
Broadcast the distance to the intersection (JP2023501481A , Pages 3-4, “This reaction time is the speed of the transmitting vehicle 110-1, the distance to the location (e.g., the distance of the transmitting vehicle 110-1 to the intersection 100), as well as the distance between vehicles in the case of cooperative maneuvers with other V2X vehicles”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita by integrating the teaching of the V2X communications taught by JP2023501481A .
The motivation would be to provide awareness to vehicles and drivers in order to aid in safely passing intersections (see JP2023501481A , Page 3).
Claim 6, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi, in view of Caballero De Ita, in view of JP2023501481A further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to estimate the second time duration required to cross the traffic light further based on the third distance (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The distance d that ego vehicle 10 must travel includes the distance between the ego vehicle 10 and vehicle 11 and the distance between vehicle 11 and vehicle 12, an estimated length of each vehicle, as well as the accelerations of each vehicle 10-12.).
Claim 7, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi, in view of Caballero De Ita, in view of JP2023501481A further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to broadcast the second time duration to the third vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], In the combination of Pascheka in view of Kurehashi, in view of Caballero De Ita, in view of JP2023501481A , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the V2X messages to further include the time for each vehicle to reach the traffic light system to further aid in coordinating all vehicles at a given intersection.).
Claim 16, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita further teaches:
The method of claim 15 further comprising broadcasting a wireless signal to a third vehicle located at a rear side of the first vehicle (Pascheka, Fig. 1, Paragraphs [0018-0019], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the ego vehicle 10 to include a towbar which enables it to transmit its own wireless signal, similar to signals S12 and S11 transmitted from vehicles 12 and 11, respectively, to a vehicle behind ego vehicle 10.).
Pascheka in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita does not specifically teach:
Broadcast the third distance.
JP2023501481A teaches:
Broadcast the distance to the intersection (JP2023501481A , Pages 3-4, “This reaction time is the speed of the transmitting vehicle 110-1, the distance to the location (e.g., the distance of the transmitting vehicle 110-1 to the intersection 100), as well as the distance between vehicles in the case of cooperative maneuvers with other V2X vehicles”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita by integrating the teaching of the V2X communications taught by JP2023501481A .
The motivation would be to provide awareness to vehicles and drivers in order to aid in safely passing intersections (see JP2023501481A , Page 3).
Claim 17, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi in view of Caballero De Ita further teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein estimating the second time duration comprises estimating the second time duration based on the third distance (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], The distance d that ego vehicle 10 must travel includes the distance between the ego vehicle 10 and vehicle 11 and the distance between vehicle 11 and vehicle 12.).
Claim 18, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi, in view of Caballero De Ita, in view of JP2023501481A further teaches:
The method of claim 17 further comprising broadcasting the second time duration to the third vehicle (Pascheka, Paragraph [0021], In the combination of Pascheka in view of Kurehashi, in view of Caballero De Ita, in view of JP2023501481A , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the V2X messages to further include the time for each vehicle to reach the traffic light system to further aid in coordinating all vehicles at a given intersection.).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascheka et al. (U.S. 2016/0229409 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2018/0274934 A1) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. 2020/0312138 A1), in view of in view of JP2023501481A.
Claim 8, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 1.
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi does not specifically teach:
Wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain information associated with road condition and weather condition; and
estimate the second time duration required to cross the traffic light based on the information associated with the road condition and weather condition.
JP2023501481A teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain information associated with road condition and weather condition (JP2023501481A, Page 11, The RSU 625 collects environmental information such as rood surface information/status and weather status. Additionally, the vehicles may be equipped with sensors capable of sensing weather conditions and other sensors, e.g. cameras, capable of sensing the surrounding environment of the vehicle (see JP2023501481A, Page 14).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi by integrating the teaching of the V2X communications taught by JP2023501481A .
The motivation would be to provide awareness to vehicles and drivers in order to aid in safely passing intersections (see JP2023501481A , Page 3).
As per the limitation of estimate the second time duration required to cross the traffic light based on the information associated with the road condition and weather condition, JP2023501481A discloses the effect of road conditions and weather to vehicle performance (see JP2023501481A, Page 15). The time duration required for a vehicle to cross the traffic light is affected by a combination of multiple factors. One example of a road condition includes the presence of other vehicles, i.e. traffic, wherein the intensions of the other vehicles factor into the time it takes a first vehicle, i.e. ego vehicle, to pass/arrive at a traffic light system (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0018]). Additionally, weather also affects the ability for a vehicle to traverse a road, including examples of snow or rain (see JP2023501481A, Page 15), and weather affects arrival times of route navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the combination of road conditions and weather to affect the time duration required to cross the traffic, and in the combination of Pascheka in view of Kurehashi, in view of JP2023501481A, the road conditions and weather would affect the time duration calculation.
Claim 19, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi teaches:
The method of claim 12.
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi does not specifically teach:
Further comprising:
obtaining information associated with road condition and weather condition; and
estimating the second time duration required to cross the traffic light based on the information associated with the road condition and weather condition.
JP2023501481A teaches:
Obtaining information associated with road condition and weather condition (JP2023501481A, Page 11, The RSU 625 collects environmental information such as rood surface information/status and weather status. Additionally, the vehicles may be equipped with sensors capable of sensing weather conditions and other sensors, e.g. cameras, capable of sensing the surrounding environment of the vehicle (see JP2023501481A, Page 14).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi by integrating the teaching of the V2X communications taught by JP2023501481A .
The motivation would be to provide awareness to vehicles and drivers in order to aid in safely passing intersections (see JP2023501481A , Page 3).
As per the limitation of estimating the second time duration required to cross the traffic light based on the information associated with the road condition and weather condition, JP2023501481A discloses the effect of road conditions and weather to vehicle performance (see JP2023501481A, Page 15). The time duration required for a vehicle to cross the traffic light is affected by a combination of multiple factors. One example of a road condition includes the presence of other vehicles, i.e. traffic, wherein the intensions of the other vehicles factor into the time it takes a first vehicle, i.e. ego vehicle, to pass/arrive at a traffic light system (see Pascheka, Paragraph [0018]). Additionally, weather also affects the ability for a vehicle to traverse a road, including examples of snow or rain (see JP2023501481A, Page 15), and weather affects arrival times of route navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the combination of road conditions and weather to affect the time duration required to cross the traffic, and in the combination of Pascheka in view of Kurehashi, in view of JP2023501481A, the road conditions and weather would affect the time duration calculation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascheka et al. (U.S. 2016/0229409 A1) in view of Agrawal et al. (U.S. 2018/0274934 A1) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. 2020/0312138 A1), in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. 2019/02336952 A1).
Claim 10, Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi further teaches:
The first vehicle of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain inputs from the detection unit (Pascheka, Paragraph [0019], The evaluation unit 3 evaluates signals from an optical front camera 7.);
determine a first vehicle position based on the inputs from the detection unit and the second vehicle information (Pascheka, Paragraph [0018], Based on signals from vehicles 11 and 12, and signals from traffic light system 1, the ego vehicle 10 can determine its relative position.).
Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi does not specifically teach:
Determine a first vehicle position in a vehicle queue; and
transmit another notification to indicate the first vehicle position.
Suzuki teaches:
Determine a first vehicle position in a vehicle queue (Suzuki, Fig. 9, Paragraphs [0086-0090], A plurality of queues 50 may be established for a given set of vehicles, wherein each vehicle’s position may be at the front or back of a queue based on the size and location of the queue.); and
transmit another notification to indicate the first vehicle position (Suzuki, Paragraphs [01033-0104], A transmitter 808 is utilized to transmit queue data, including the number of vehicles in a queue, the positions of the vehicles in the queue, and the IDs of the vehicles in the queue.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Pascheka in view of Agrawal in view of Kurehashi by integrating the teaching of an information processing system for analyzing vehicle queues, as taught by Suzuki.
The motivation would be to provide useful information, e.g. traffic condition, to drivers and business enterprises by understanding vehicle queues (see Suzuki, Paragraphs [0024-0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument regarding the cited references failing to teach each and every limitation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, on Page 9, the Applicant argues that the Pascheka reference fails to teach “historical” data, and discloses that the Applicant interprets “historical” data to be data indicative of how a vehicle has been driven in the past, either under automated operation or manual operation by particular drivers. The Examiner contends that this interpretation is not an explicit definition of the claims, and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “historical” data, as disclosed in the rejection above, includes the data required to both operate and identify the accelerations, e.g. rapid starting or normal starting, is interpreted as historical rate of change of speed profiles (see Pascheka, Paragraphs [0019] and [0022]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a vehicle programmed to operate in one of at least three modes, associated with accelerations, is interpretable as historical speed profiles because it is within the scope of the teachings of Pascheka for the modes to have previously been operated. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation would be to improve passenger safety by utilizing driver data (see Agrawal, Paragraph [0015]). The Pascheka reference, as argued above, teaches historical rate of change of speed profiles which define a first, second, or third mode of operation of the vehicle, and by combining the teachings of Agrawal into Pascheka, driver profiles in combination of operating modes of the vehicles would aid in improving passenger safety.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner notes that it appears that the Applicant intends for the claims to define the historical rate of change speed profiles to be based on driving habits of particular drivers, i.e. a first driver may historically be an aggressive driver and second driver may be a more cautious driver. Furthermore, the system would thus be able to determine, based on a combination of first vehicle information, second vehicle information, the current green light duration, and the historical driving habits of the current driver of the vehicle to determine the probability of the vehicle making a green light phase. For example, an aggressive driver would have a higher probability of making a short green light phase versus a more cautious driver. The claims, as explained in the response to arguments above, do not inherently or explicitly define this aspect of the Applicant’s invention, nor do the claims define the Applicant’s invention away from the prior art of record. For example, although historical rate of change of speed profiles of a first or second driver are taken into consideration, the claims are absent the step of selecting which profile to apply by identifying which driver is currently driving.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686