DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-14 and 17 have been amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 17 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues, under the heading “II. Objection to the Drawings,” that the drawings as amended have written description. The examiner accepts Fig. 12 based on the arguments and amendments. The examiner withdraws the drawing objection made in the last detailed action, which was the second Non-Final Rejection, dated May 26, 2026.
The applicant further argues, under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),” that the use of the term “a first predetermined value” clarifies the issue raised in the last detailed action and is based on paragraphs 0081-0085 of the present specification. That rejection in the last detailed action focused on claims 4 and 5 and replacing “threshold value” with “a first predetermined value.” Some background on this might be helpful. The original claim language of claims 4 and 5 (i.e., the claims dated November 27, 2023), recited “a specific value.” In the first Non-Final Rejection, dated October 22, 2025, the examiner did not write a written description rejection for using the phrase “a specific value” in claims 4 and 5. Claim 4 relates to determining using when the sound reaches the sound sensors that the emergency vehicle was in the same lane as the host vehicle. The examiner wrote in the first Non-Final Rejection that “the present disclosure does not state explicitly what this specific value is, just that there is one. Therefore, in a broad reasonable interpretation, the specific value could be 0. According to claim 2, the first sensor is on the front left, and the second sensor is on the front right. If it takes 1.1 seconds to reach the first (front left) sensor and 1.1 seconds to reach the second (front right) sensor, that would mean that the emergency vehicle is equidistant from both sensors. The difference between these two quantities would be equal to the specific value of zero.”
In response to the first Non-Final Rejection, the applicant filed claims dated January 22, 2026. In that set of claims, claim 4 was amended to change a “first specific value” to a “threshold value”. Claim 5 was similarly amended. This might have been related to the examiner arguing that the “specific value” could reasonably be zero. In the present specification, the term “specific value” is used in paragraph 0099, which states that if the difference in the time that the sound reaches the first and second sensor “is less than or equal to a first specific value” than, basically, the emergency vehicle is in the same lane as the host vehicle. Therefore, replacing a “specific value” with a “threshold value” has written description.
In the second Non-Final Rejection, the examiner rejected the language of a “threshold value”. In response, in the claims filed May 26, 2026, the applicant has amended a “threshold value” to a “first predetermined value”. The concept of some threshold value is in the claim and in the specification. The examiner withdraws the written description rejection of claims 4 and 5.
The examiner does not think that the “threshold speed” in claim 12 and paragraph 0082 can be amended to a “predetermined threshold speed,” as amended in claim 12. That is because it seems that the system, in at least some cases, really checks whether the relative speed is greater than the current speed of the host vehicle. If so, than the two vehicles may be driving in opposite directions. This “threshold speed” may change, therefore it does not seem to be “predetermined.” The examiner will accept claim 12 as amended except without the term “predetermined.” In other words, the amended language of “when it is determined” is good. But the addition of “predetermined” is rejected.
The rest of the written description rejections are withdrawn based on argument and amendment.
The applicant further argues, under the heading “IV. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103,” that the prior art of record does not teach claim 1 as currently amended. In particular, the applicant argues that Schmitt et al. (US2023/0063047) does not teach claim 1. The applicant writes on page 12 of the Remarks that “Schmitt fails to disclose or render obvious comparing arrival times of sound signals specifically at left and right sensors against a predetermined threshold to make a discrete, lane-level congruency determination.”
The applicant also argues that Ferguson et al. (U.S. 8,676,427) does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Schmitt. The applicant argues on page 12 of the Remarks that Ferguson does not disclose or suggest analyzing a lateral (left-vs.-right) axis, let alone determining whether another vehicle is traveling in the same lane as the host vehicle based on a comparison between left/right sound arrival time differences and a predetermined threshold value, in the manner now recited in claim 1. Rather, as discussed above, Ferguson’s teaching of determining whether an audio source is located in front of or behind a vehicle is strictly limited to a longitudinal (front-vs.-rear) axis analysis. See e.g., Ferguson at col. 5, lines 47-67.”
The applicant adds on page 13 that independent claim 17 has been amended to “include features consistent with those discussed above for allowable independent claim 1.”
Ferguson definitely teaches the limitations that were formerly in claim 4. Yet Ferguson is less clear on what happens if the ambulance is not directly behind the host vehicle. That is to say, if the ambulance is in lane 304 of Fig. 3 of Ferguson, and not lane 302. When the host vehicle, which is in lane 302, determines that the emergency vehicle is in lane 302, the host vehicle determines it should pull over. Ferguson never explicitly says that the system can determine when the host vehicle is in lane 302 and the emergency vehicle is in lane 304. Nor does Ferguson explicitly say that when this is the case, the host vehicle should not pull over. Ferguson never really says either way. It seems that Ferguson is saying that the system can determine if the emergency vehicle is in lane 302 or 304, and that the host vehicle’s reaction would be different depending on what lane the emergency vehicle is in, but Ferguson does not state the specifics, as found in the last clause of present claim 1.
Present claim 1 now recites:
An apparatus for controlling a host vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to acquire a sound of another vehicle;
a position acquiring device configured to acquire a moving path and an expected moving path of the host vehicle;
one or more processors; and
a memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
determine a driving state of the other vehicle based on
i) the sound of the other vehicle and
ii) at least one of
the moving path of the host vehicle or
the expected moving path of the host vehicle,
determine a moving path of the other vehicle based on the driving state of the other vehicle, and
control to avoid the moving path of the other vehicle,
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
compare a difference between a time for the sound to reach a first sensor provided on a left side of the host vehicle and a time for the sound to reach a second sensor provided on a right side of the host vehicle with a first predetermined value, and
determine, based on a result of the comparison, whether the other vehicle is driving in a lane the same as a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving, or in a second lane different from the first lane.
It is obviously important to understand the scope of present claim 1. The claim recites that the system compares “a difference between a time for the sound to reach a first sensor provided on a left side of the host vehicle and a time for the sound to reach a second sensor provided on a right side of the host vehicle with a first predetermined value”. This “first predetermined value” was previously called “a first specific value” in older claims.
Note that present claim 1 says nothing about a “third sensor” and a “fourth sensor” and comparing the difference in times for the sound to reach those sensors as well.
Claims 4 and 5 refer to these third and fourth sensors. What claims 4 and 5 essentially say, in one broad reasonable interpretation, is that not only are just two microphones (such as a left and right in the rear, for example) used to determine if an emergency vehicle is in the same lane or a different lane from the host vehicle but in fact four microphones are used. In claims 4 and 5 there is an important “and” statement, which means that the system must re-confirm its findings from a first and second sensor by obtaining the same time difference (that of a first predetermined value) using a third and fourth senor (a microphone sensor).
But that teaching is not in claim 1. Claims 4 and 5 have not been incorporated into present claim 1. Claim 1 only says that two microphones are used when determining if an emergency vehicle is in the same lane or a different lane from the host vehicle. The examiner notes that Takagi is very strong and teaching lanes.
Another close prior art is Schmitt et al. (US2023/0063047 A1) who teaches determining if an emergency vehicle is behind the host vehicle and then instructing the host vehicle to change lanes. But Schmitt does not further teach using the same first specific value (or first predetermined value) and a difference to determine if the emergency vehicle is behind the host vehicle or in the adjacent lane, as in present claim 1.
Note that Schmitt teaches localization of the emergency vehicle and the host vehicle into a map database. This determines the position of the emergency vehicle relative to the host vehicle and then potentially further situates both vehicles in lanes. But even this close teaching is not determining whether the emergency vehicle is in next to or behind the host vehicle based on a single first specific value as taught in present claim 1.
Another close prior art is Takagi (JP2009015498A). See Fig. 4 for a host vehicle with four microphones to detect sirens. See Fig. 6 and page 6 of the English translation for step S360 being related to the direction of an emergency vehicle. S370 means the emergency vehicle is approaching. S380 means that emergency vehicle is not approaching.
Takagi page 3 teaches analyzing the “frequency change due to the Doppler effect of the warning sound exceeds a predetermined change set in advance.” Later on the same page Takagi teaches a system in which the host vehicle can receive display and/or audio information “indicate a travel route planned by an emergency vehicle”. This display shows “the travel route planned by the emergency vehicle on the road map together with the positions of the emergency vehicle and the general vehicle. For this reason, the driver / operator of a general vehicle [a host vehicle] can graphs / ascertain reliably whether the own vehicle is located on the advancing path / route of an emergency vehicle.”
Page 3 of Takagi also teaches that, based on displaying the “traffic lane” that the emergency vehicle is using and plans to use the “lanes to avoid [by the host vehicle driver] can be identified.” In this way, “the driver of a general vehicle can avoid the emergency vehicle more appropriately according to the situation.”
See page 4 of Takagi for teaching that the way the system determines “the current position of the [host] vehicle is using the “position detector 11” which “receives a radio wave from a GPS…satellite.” That data is then input into “map data input device 11” which has “various data stored in a map storage medium,” including “road and lane data.” Page 5 of Takagi teaches that the emergency vehicle has a “position detector 21” which has the “same configuration as the components 11” of the host vehicle.
Takagi teaches that the host vehicle’s “sound collecting microphone 26” (which are “26a to 26 d arranged at four positions on the front and rear, left and right of the vehicle body 2 of a general vehicle”) determines “whether or not the siren sound of the emergency vehicle has been detected.” If so, in Fig. 5, step S230, the system “determines whether or not the emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle based on the audio signal detected in S220.” If the emergency vehicle is approaching, the system sets a “travel flag Gc” and in step S250 the “emergency vehicle position” is displayed inside the host vehicle “in order to notify the user of the current location of the emergency vehicle and the planned travel route.” In addition, the map displays “a mark representing the current position of the host vehicle”
As shown in Figs. 7 and 8 attached below, Takagi teaches displaying lanes, including the lane the emergency vehicle is located on and the traveling path of the emergency vehicle.
One of the most important teachings of Takagi as it relates to present claim 1 is on page 6. See page 6, step S330 in which the system determines if the “Doppler change amount Δfr exceeds a preset change amount Δfn.” Then see the subsequent steps for determining based on the Doppler change and relative speed that the emergency vehicle is approaching or is “moving away from the host vehicle”. Although Takagi situations the emergency vehicle in its current lane and even in its scheduled lane, Takagi does not explicitly state that the “preset change amount,” or preset Doppler shift between left and right sensors is used to situation a vehicle in a particular lane.
PNG
media_image1.png
968
1394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
668
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Becker et al. (US2017/0249839). Becker teaches in paragraph 0025 using a Doppler effect to determine the location of an emergency vehicle. As seen in Fig. 7C, the system can determine the emergency vehicle is behind the host vehicle 100 and in a different lane. But Becker does not explicitly state exactly how the system locates the lane location of the emergency vehicle. Becker does not explicitly state that it is done by comparing sound from a left and right sensor to a “predetermined value” and then, as in present claim 1, determining “based on a result of the comparison, whether the other vehicle is driving in a lane the same as a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving, or in a second lane different from the first lane.”
PNG
media_image3.png
520
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Another close prior art is Neolix (CN111409644A) who teaches in the middle of page 5 of the attached English translation a system that can determine “whether an [emergency vehicle] obstacle exists on the side of the autonomous vehicle” or whether “there is no obstacle on the side of the autonomous vehicle” and instead the host vehicle needs to “avoid the rear vehicle that has the whistle”. Neolix does this by measuring the time and distance of sounds arriving at microphones set on the four corners of the vehicle. See Fig. 2 for an “external sound source shown in Fig. 2 with respect to the symmetry line AA’. Meanwhile, the distance d1 and the distance d2 in fig. 2 can be determined according to the specific receiving time of the sound emitted by the external sound source 5 received by the two sound sensors 3 at the position a and b, and thus the specific position of the external sound source 5 can be determined.” The host vehicle 4 has sound sensors “at each corner position of the vehicle body 4.” The system is configured to “adjust a traveling parameter of the autonomous vehicle according to sound information”. If there is a siren behind the host vehicle, the host vehicle “judges that there is no obstacle on the side of the autonomous vehicle,” and if not the host vehicle “may shift [to] the side of the autonomous vehicle without the external sound source 5 in fig. 2 and 3 to avoid the rear vehicle that has the whistle.” If the host vehicle “judges that the side of the automatic driving vehicle without the external sound source 5 in fig. 2 and 3 has the obstacle according to the received obstacle detection result,” the host vehicle will “still keep running in the original lane”.
This shows that Neolix conceptualizes changing lanes when it is safe to do so if an emergency vehicle is detected using sound and the detection shows the emergency vehicle is behind the host vehicle. The use of the term “lane” is significant. This teaching is very similar to Ferguson.
But Neolix does not teach staying in the original lane is the emergency vehicle is detected as being in the neighboring lane to the lane in which the host vehicle is currently traveling, as in present claim 1.
Another close prior art is Shin et al. (US2020/0156629) teaches using V2V to allow an emergency vehicle to communicate its position and trajectory to surrounding vehicles. See paragraph 0059 for “In this case, the determination device 140 may compare the locations of the emergency vehicle 10 and each vehicle 20 on traveling lanes with each other and may determine, as the control vehicle, a vehicle located on the same lane as the lane of the emergency vehicle 10.” See paragraph 0061 “In addition, the determination device 140 may identify the location and the expected traveling path of each vehicle 20 and may determine, as the control vehicle, a vehicle, the lane of which is to be changed to the traveling lane of the emergency vehicle 10.”
Yet Shin does not teach determining whether the emergency vehicle is behind or in the neighboring lane as the host vehicle using a single “first specific value” or similar phrase as present claim 1 does.
Another close prior art is Luo et al. (US2021/0173408). See paragraph 0015 for “A system and process can a) detect presence of an emergency vehicle siren in one or microphone signals, and b) determine whether the emergency vehicle siren is approaching the ADV, based on changes in the siren's amplitude or frequency (e.g., through the Doppler effect). If the ADV senses that an emergency vehicle is approaching the ADV (i.e., getting closer), then the ADV can make a driving decision to give the emergency vehicle a clear path.
See paragraph 0068 for the host vehicle detecting that the emergency vehicle is “driving away” from the host vehicle based on the analysis of the siren. See paragraph 0065 for the host vehicle being able to “ignore sirens that are not approaching and prevent unnecessary disturbances to the drive.”
See paragraph 0032 for a system with perception sensors that can determine the lane configuration including the lane width, the number of lanes, and the direction of lanes. The system can use this information in conjunction with sound data to determine if a host vehicle should pull over or if it can ignore the sound of a siren. Yet Luo does not teach determine if an emergency vehicle is in the same or different lane based just on the siren data and a difference in timing of the data, as taught in present claim 1.
Sudo (US2020/0089253). Sudo teaches a system that uses at least microphones 1 through N (see Fig. 2) to detect the situation around a host vehicle. See Figs. 5A-5D, attached below, for an emergency vehicle approaching a host vehicle 5 in Fig. 5A and then “departing” from the host vehicle in Fig. 5D. Yet this does not teach that the system determines that the host vehicle is behind the emergency vehicle and approaching the emergency vehicle using a relative speed and a threshold speed. Yet Sudo does not explicitly state that it is done by comparing sound from a left and right sensor to a “predetermined value” and then, as in present claim 1, determining “based on a result of the comparison, whether the other vehicle is driving in a lane the same as a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving, or in a second lane different from the first lane.”
PNG
media_image4.png
692
1030
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Overall, the prior art of record does not teach using a single predetermined value related to comparing when sound hits a left and right microphone on a host vehicle to determine the lane location of an emergency vehicle, either directly behind or behind and adjacent to the host vehicle. In light of the whole invention, that is what is not found in the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether relative speed of the other vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold speed, when it is determined
As explained in the “Response to Arguments” section above, reciting “a predetermined threshold speed” does not have written description and is new matter. The examiner will accept “a threshold speed.”
Claims 13-14 are rejected due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 are allowable. The allowance will not be issued at this time to allow the applicant to decide how to proceed with claim 12, which depends on claim 1. The examiner will consider allowing the claims as an After-Final. If the applicant has any question, they are invited to call the examiner.
Claim 1 and its reasons for allowance, including a discussion of the prior art, was included above in the “Response to Arguments” section of this detailed action.
Claim 17 recites:
A method for controlling a host vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring a sound of another vehicle;
acquiring a moving path of the host vehicle and an expected moving path of the host vehicle;
determining a driving state of the other vehicle based on
i) the sound of the other vehicle and
ii) at least one of the moving path of the host vehicle or the expected moving path of the host vehicle;
determining a moving path of the other vehicle based on the driving state of the other vehicle; and
controlling the host vehicle to avoid the moving path of the other vehicle,
wherein the determining of the driving state of the second vehicle includes:
comparing a difference between a time for the sound to reach a first sensor provided on a left side of the host vehicle and a time for the sound to reach a second sensor provided on a right side of the host vehicle with a first predetermined value, and
determining, based on a result of the comparison, whether the other vehicle is driving
in a lane the same as a first lane on which the host vehicle is driving, or
in a second lane different from the first lane.
In light of the whole invention, the prior art of record does not teach determining whether a vehicle is in the same lane or in the adjacent lane based on “a first predetermined value” related to sound detected by a first and second sensor on a left and right side of a vehicle. See the art cited in the discussion of claim 1.
Claims 18 and 19 are allowable for at least the reasons of claim 17.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Probert et al. (US20160098926) teaches in paragraph 0038 that the system can determine that “the distance between host vehicle 10 and the emergency vehicle 14 continues to decrease” and that the host vehicle can be configured so that “the host vehicle may not approach an emergency vehicle 14 within a distance of a standard lane width or some other predetermined distance when passing an emergency vehicle 14”. Thus, the system determines that the host vehicle is approaching the emergency vehicle from behind. Yet Probert does not discuss microphone sensors or a Doppler shift.
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 DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights