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 February 16, 2026 been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 are presently canceled. Claims 21-24 are new. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 13, and 16-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Specification Objection,” that the title and paragraph 0098 of the filed specification have been amended. The examiner accepts this amendments and withdraws their associated objections made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated February 16, 2026.
The applicant further states in the Remarks, under the heading “Objection to the Drawings,” that Fig. 5 has been amended. The examiner accepts the amended drawings. No new matter has been added. The examiner withdraws the drawing objection made in the last detailed action.
The applicant further states in the Remarks, under the heading “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,” that consecutive numbering in claim 6 is merely related patent law convention and not necessarily meant to correspond to the drawings. The examiner believes that in the present case, since these points are not defined in the claims and do not have an ordinary and customary meaning in the art, “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with…the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings,” according to the MPEP 2111. That is how the examiner interpreted the terms.
The examiner maintains the rejections of claim 6 and therefore 7, 8, and 16-18. The examiner respectfully re-asks the question from the last detailed action: ”In Fig. 5, would P3 be at the intersection of LS1_ego and LS1_tg, or at the intersection of LS2_ego and LS2_tg?” Or perhaps P3 is another point? It might be that the answer, based on Figs. 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 is that in Fig. 5, P3 or the “projected point” is the intersection of LS2_ego and LS2_tg. But if that is the case then how is it that, as claim 6 recites at the end “the reference point is a point, between the first point and the third point, that the first vehicle is estimated to reach first”?
Claim 6 will be interpreted in the same way as in the last detailed action, save for the changing of the term third point. This includes the interpretation that examiner stated in the last detailed action: “For purposes of examination, the entire end of the last hollow bullet will be ignored beginning with the word ‘wherein’.”
The examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 due to the amendments.
The applicant further states in the Remarks, under the heading “Potentially Allowable Subject Matter,” that claims 5 and 15 were indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the last detailed action. The examiner agrees and notes that those claims were incorporated with their dependents into their independent claims. Claim 1 and therefore 3 and 4 are allowable in their current form, but the examiner will not issue the allowance at this time to allow the applicant to decide how they would like to proceed. The examiner has listed these claims as objected to in the paperwork because claim 1 contains a dependent claim that cannot be allowed in its current condition.
The examiner notes that claim 11 has been amended to enter the words “satisfies a predetermined condition” in place of the words “being greater than a threshold value”. This is in the context of “determining whether a possibility of collision, in the overlapping area… satisfies a predetermined condition
Claim 11 states in its entirety:
A method comprising:
determining:
a first travel area comprising a first expected travel path of a first vehicle, and
a second travel area comprising a second expected travel path of a second vehicle located within a predetermined distance from the first vehicle;
determining an overlapping area between the first travel area and the second travel area;
determining whether a possibility of collision, in the overlapping area, between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a predetermined conditio
causing, based on a determination that the possibility of collision satisfies the predetermined condition
wherein the first travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a first offset in a lateral direction from the first expected travel path, and the first offset is adjusted based on a speed of the first vehicle, and
wherein the second travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a second offset in a lateral direction from the second expected travel path, and the second offset is adjusted based on a speed of the second vehicle.
Does this amendment regarding the “predetermined condition” have written description? Paragraph 0126 of the present disclosure states related to sensing a nearby vehicle in step S1601 that the system “may determine a vehicle within a predetermined location from the host vehicle”. Or, “Alternatively, the processor 200 may determine a vehicle whose expected travel path is within a threshold value from the expected travel path of the host vehicle”. Fig. 3, S330, recites “determination of risk of collision in overlapping area”. Paragraph 0083 teaches determining the difference between the timing of when the two vehicles reach the overlapping area. Paragraph 0084 teaches determining a “first timing” and a “danger period by applying a margin to the first timing.” Paragraph 0107 refers to a “danger period” as well.
The term “predetermined condition” is broader than the original disclosure and new matter. The term could mean, for example, determining if the pavement is wet, or determining if the driver is drowsy. These are predetermined conditions known in the art. The specification does not use the term so its meaning cannot be interpreted consistent with the specification. For examination purposes, the sections in question, which are: “determining whether a possibility of collision, in the overlapping area, between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a predetermined conditio the predetermined condition
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 6-8, 11, 13, 14, 16-20 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.
6. (Currently Amended)
Claim 6 recites, with the examiner’s notes in bold:
The device oclaim 1,wherein
the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to:
determine a first point at an intersection between the first expected travel path [of the host vehicle] and the second expected travel path (in the present published disclosure, see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0096 for “a first point P1);
determine a second point at a location where the second vehicle first enters the overlapping area between the first travel area and the second travel area (in the present published disclosure, see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0096 for “a second point P2”.);
determine a rojected point by projecting the second point onto the first expected travel path (in the present published disclosure, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 0101 for “a third point P3”. In Fig. 6, point P2 is not merely projected onto the first expected travel path, but is projected onto a particular side of the first expected travel path, which is the side it enters the overlap region. But in that case, in Fig. 5, would P3 be at the intersection of LS1_ego and LS1_tg, or at the intersection of LS2_ego and LS2_tg? The claim does not say, nor it is answered in Fig. 5. For examination purposes, point P3 will be interpreted broadly as either one. It may be that the “projected point” in the present claim refers to the intersection of LS1_ego and LS1_tg. This is based on later figures in the disclosure. But if that is the case, then that appears to conflict with the last clause which teaches that “the reference point is a point, between the first point and the projected point, that the first vehicle is estimated to reach first”. If the “projected point” is the intersection of LS1_ego and LS1_tg in Fig. 5 then the reference point, which is point P2’, is not between the first point P1 and the projected point.); and
determine a reference point for determining a time for the first vehicle to enter the overlapping area, wherein the reference point is a point, between the first point and the projected point, that the first vehicle is estimated to reach first (in the present published disclosure, see Fig. 5 and paragraph 0103 for the reference point being point P2’ in a scenario in which the target vehicle reaches the second point P2 first. But is P2 always or even sometimes “between the first point and the third point” as recited in the claims? That is not described in the disclosure. For examination purposes, that limitation will be ignored.).
For purposes of examination, the end of the last hollow bullet will be ignored beginning with the word “wherein”.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 11 states in its entirety:
A method comprising:
determining:
a first travel area comprising a first expected travel path of a first vehicle, and
a second travel area comprising a second expected travel path of a second vehicle located within a predetermined distance from the first vehicle;
determining an overlapping area between the first travel area and the second travel area;
determining whether a possibility of collision, in the overlapping area, between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a predetermined conditio
causing, based on a determination that the possibility of collision satisfies the predetermined condition
wherein the first travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a first offset in a lateral direction from the first expected travel path, and the first offset is adjusted based on a speed of the first vehicle, and
wherein the second travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a second offset in a lateral direction from the second expected travel path, and the second offset is adjusted based on a speed of the second vehicle.
Does this amendment regarding the “predetermined condition” have written description? Paragraph 0126 of the present disclosure states related to sensing a nearby vehicle in step S1601 that the system “may determine a vehicle within a predetermined location from the host vehicle”. Or, “Alternatively, the processor 200 may determine a vehicle whose expected travel path is within a threshold value from the expected travel path of the host vehicle”. Fig. 3, S330, recites “determination of risk of collision in overlapping area”. Paragraph 0083 teaches determining the difference between the timing of when the two vehicles reach the overlapping area. Paragraph 0084 teaches determining a “first timing” and a “danger period by applying a margin to the first timing.” Paragraph 0107 refers to a “danger period” as well.
The term “predetermined condition” is broader than the original disclosure and new matter. The term could mean, for example, determining if the pavement is wet, or determining if the driver is drowsy. These are predetermined conditions known in the art. The specification does not use the term so its meaning cannot be interpreted consistent with the specification. For examination purposes, the sections in question, which are: “determining whether a possibility of collision, in the overlapping area, between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a predetermined conditio the predetermined condition
The examiner might allow reciting something related to a predetermined timing or time period if the applicant cites paragraphs from the original disclosure that support that.
Claims 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 6, are rejected for the same reasons, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 21 is rejected for a similar reason to claim 11. Claim 21 recites:
A first vehicle comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first vehicle to:
determine a first travel area comprising a first expected travel path of the first vehicle;
determine a second travel area comprising a second expected travel path of a second vehicle located within a predetermined distance from the first vehicle;
determine an overlapping area between the first travel area and the second travel area; and
perform, based on a determination that a possibility of collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle in the overlapping area satisfies a predetermined condition, an evasive maneuver,
wherein the first travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a first offset in a lateral direction from the first expected travel path, and the first offset is adjusted based on a speed of the first vehicle, and
wherein the second travel area is determined to include an area within a range having a second offset in a lateral direction from the second expected travel path, and the second offset is adjusted based on a speed of the second vehicle.
Reciting that “a possibility of collision…satisfies a predetermined condition” is broader than the original disclosure and new matter. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “greater than a threshold value”.
Claims 22-24 are rejected due to their dependency.
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