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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Introduction
Claims 1-5, 8, and 9 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 6 and 7 have been canceled since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Patent Application Publication 3273423 to Danciu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0083701 to Yamada et al.
As per claim 1, Danciu discloses a vehicle control device that controls a vehicle, the vehicle control device (Danciu; At least the abstract) comprising:
a recognition circuit configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the vehicle (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 8 and 9; the various ‘circuits’ are interpreted as software running on a processor, which can be combined or separate, per at least paragraph(s) 36 and 79);
a first determination circuit configured to determine whether there is a crosswalk in a scheduled traveling lane of the vehicle that is traveling or starts traveling, based on a recognition result of the recognition circuit (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 8);
a second determination circuit configured to determine whether there is an adjacent lane that is adjacent to the scheduled traveling lane and has the same traveling direction as the scheduled traveling lane, based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit or map information prepared in advance (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 6);
a third determination circuit configured to, when the first determination circuit determines that there is the crosswalk and the second determination circuit determines that there is the adjacent lane, determine, based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit, whether there is another vehicle that is on the adjacent lane and is stopped in front of the crosswalk when viewed from the vehicle (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 7, 9, and 11); and
a travel controller configured to perform restraint control for restraining a travel speed of the vehicle when the third determination circuit determines that there is the another vehicle (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 12); and
Danciu discloses slowing the vehicle near the crosswalk in case a pedestrian is in the crosswalk and a full brake will be needed (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 12). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the restraint control would be released if the full brake is not needed, i.e., there is no pedestrian present. Danciu does not explicitly disclose a fourth determination circuit configured to determine whether a predetermined end condition for ending the restraint control is satisfied when the restraint control is being performed by the travel controller, and wherein the travel controller ends the restraint control when the fourth determination circuit determines that the end condition is satisfied, wherein the fourth determination circuit determines that the end condition is satisfied when it is determined that there is no traffic participant in at least a predetermined range of the crosswalk based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit, and wherein the predetermined range includes a portion of the crosswalk overlapping the scheduled traveling lane and a portion of the crosswalk overlapping the adjacent lane.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Yamada (Yamada; At least paragraph(s) 132, 155, and 165, and figure 16. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Yamada into the invention of Danciu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. The system needs to determine when the restraint control can end and normal driving can resume. The exact determination, such as no pedestrian in an area or the vehicle passed through the crosswalk as seen in the paragraph(s) of Yamada, would be a design choice and within the skill of one in the art during normal design and testing.
As per claim 2, Danciu discloses wherein the crosswalk is a crosswalk provided at a crossing point at which one road and another road cross each other, and wherein the scheduled traveling lane and the adjacent lane are lanes included in the one road both in front of and behind the crossing point (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 8; the control unit recognizes crosswalks and would do so at an intersection).
As per claim 3, Danciu discloses wherein when the first determination circuit determines that there is the crosswalk and the second determination circuit determines that there is the adjacent lane, the third determination circuit determines whether there is the another vehicle that is on the adjacent lane, is stopped in front of the crosswalk when viewed from the vehicle, and is within a predetermined distance from the crosswalk, based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 8, 9, and 11).
As per claim 8, Danciu discloses slowing the vehicle near the crosswalk in case a pedestrian is in the crosswalk and a full brake will be needed (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 12). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the restraint control would be released if the full brake is not needed, i.e., vehicle is past the intersection, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fourth determination circuit determines that the end condition is satisfied when the vehicle passes through the crosswalk.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Yamada (Yamada; At least paragraph(s) 132, 155, and 165, and figure 16. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Yamada into the invention of Danciu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. The system needs to determine when the restraint control can end and normal driving can resume. The exact determination, such as the vehicle passed through the crosswalk as seen in the paragraph(s) of Yamada, would be a design choice and within the skill of one in the art during normal design and testing.
As per claim 9, Danciu discloses the method performed by the control device of claim 1 (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 1). Therefore, claim 9 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danciu, in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0173237 to Reiley et al.
As per claim 4, Danciu discloses wherein when the first determination circuit determines that there is the crosswalk and the second determination circuit determines that there is the adjacent lane, the third determination circuit determines whether there is the another vehicle that is on the adjacent lane, is stopped in front of the crosswalk when viewed from the vehicle, based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit (Danciu; At least paragraph(s) 8, 9, and 11)
Danciu does not explicitly disclose the determination circuit determins whether the another vehicle does not perform a predetermined out-of-vehicle notification, based on the recognition result of the recognition circuit.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Reiley (Reiley; At least paragraph(s) 50). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Reiley into the invention of Danciu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Sensing out-of-vehicle notifications of the other vehicle would provide additional information to better characterize the environment and allow the vehicle to make better decisions.
As per claim 5, Danciu does not explicitly disclose wherein the out-of-vehicle notification is a notification by a direction indicator, a hazard lamp, a stop display plate or a flame generating cylinder.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Reiley (Reiley; At least paragraph(s) 50). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Reiley into the invention of Danciu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Sensing out-of-vehicle notifications of the other vehicle would provide additional information to better characterize the environment and allow the vehicle to make better decisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 12/15/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Danciu, in view of Yamada, does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1 (i.e., claims 6 and 7), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art cannot disclose every scenario and, thus, the prior art is interpreted as one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the previous rejection, one in the art would understand that if a pedestrian is not around, both Danciu and Yamada would drive through the intersection since there is no risk of colliding with a pedestrian. This can be further seen in at least Yamada figure 7, when in states “SC (stop crosswalk)” of “CCC (careful cross crosswalk)”, the “pedestrian is not present in area near crosswalk” condition leads to the vehicle continuing through the intersection. Lastly, as seen in at least the paragraphs and figure cited in the rejection above, the pedestrian in not within in area on the road, therefore, the pedestrian is not in a predetermined range including a portion of the crosswalk, and Yamada discloses the claim limitation as written.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights