DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed December 19, 2025. Claim 14 is new. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-13 are amended. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. Objection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed December 19, 2025 regarding the objection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/amendments are persuasive. Accordingly, the objection rejection is withdrawn.
5. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed December 19, 2025 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/amendments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “regarding limitation (ii), Karacan at most teaches information that comes from a plurality of sensors and includes vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road. However, Karacan fails to teach the sensors information covering exiting area and entrance area adjacent to the area CA and connected to the intersection. In fact, Karacan is silent with respect to de fining an exiting area and entrance area adjacent to the area CA and connected to the intersection. In order for Karacan to disclose limitation (ii), Karacan would need to specify that the sensor information covers an exiting and entrance area connected to the intersection and also adjacent to the non blocking area. Turning to Toda, Toda similarly lacks this feature, as Toda only specifies sensors on a vehicle rather than an environment sensor capable of covering a specified area including the exiting area and entrance area adjacent to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection. Thus, both Karacan and Toda fail to teach limitation (ii). As mentioned above, the Examiner asserts that Toda discloses the free space required by limitation (iii). Toda, at most, teaches the space SP1 in an added lane on the approach to an intersection, rather than a space in the exiting area connected to the intersection. Toda fails to teach a space between the non-blocking area in the intersection and an exiting vehicle located in the respective exiting area closest to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection. In fact, Toda is silent with respect to defining a non-blocking area and a respective exiting area closest to the non-blocking area. Thus, Toda fails to teach limitation (iii). Further, regarding limitation (iii), a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Karacan to include the free space of Toda without impermissible recognition derived from the Applicant's own specification.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. 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)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. All the limitations are expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art. Regarding limitation (ii), Karacan discloses a RSU that performs traffic management which includes management of all traffic areas (exiting area and entrance area adjacent to the area CA and connected to the intersection) around the path of the traveling vehicle. All these road areas are connected to the intersection managed by the RSU traffic controller. (ii). Additionally, it is conventional and well known in the art that RSUs perform traffic management not only in intersections but also areas where traffic management is needed to improve traffic flow (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 7, 6, “controllers of intersections are, for example, implemented by RSUs, and the sequence and timing of traffic light cycles change as a function of information that comes from a plurality of sensors that are placed in the ground beneath the streets (e.g., per predefined lane). The information that is detected and reported includes, for example, the vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road”).
Regarding limitation (iii), Karacan impliedly contains a space between the non-blocking area in the intersection and an exiting vehicle located in the respective exiting area closest to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection. As already mentioned, RSUs have plurality of sensors used for traffic control that can detect space between vehicle, number of cars in a lane, position of vehicles, direction, etc. it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to come to the conclusion that RSUs can determine a free space on a road. Additionally, Toda further teaches this limitation implemented in a vehicle system where a vehicle recognizes a free space to enter. Further, this limitation is conventional and known in the art as already mentioned because RSUs and vehicle systems can detect free spaced on a travel road utilizing range sensors, image sensors, recognition sensors and such (See at least fig 1-9, ¶ 9, 12, 75, 74, “In FIG. 6, another vehicle ml stops in the added lane L2 and the added lane has a space SPl behind the other vehicle ml where at least the own-vehicle M can stop. For example, when the recognizer 130 has recognized that no other vehicle is present in the added lane L2 or that another vehicle ml is present in the added lane L2, leaving an empty space SPl where the own-vehicle M can stop, the condition determiner 146 determines that the condition 4 is satisfied”). Therefore, the combination of Karacan and Toda disclose the limitation (iii). Accordingly, the same reasoning applies regarding limitations (i)-(iv), as already presented by the examiner above. 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).
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).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Accordingly, the limitations argued by the applicant are expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art as shown. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Karacan et al, US 2015/0310738, in view of Toda et al. US 2019/0276027, hereinafter referred to as Karacan and Toda, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Karacan discloses a method for performing an intersection blocking prevention for traffic participants in vicinity of the intersection, the method comprising:
defining a non-blocking area for the intersection (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 64, 49, 42, “Due to the left-turn maneuver that has not been fully completed, the first vehicle 01 is located within the danger zone ( e.g., a conflict area CA), which, according to the exemplary embodiment, is monitored by devices of the traffic infrastructure such that it is ascertained whether vehicles stop within this zone”);
receiving environment sensor information covering at least one exiting area and at least one entrance area adjacent to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 7, 6, “controllers of intersections are, for example, implemented by RSUs, and the sequence and timing of traffic light cycles change as a function of information that comes from a plurality of sensors that are placed in the ground beneath the streets (e.g., per predefined lane). The information that is detected and reported includes, for example, the vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road”);
determining a free space in the at least one exiting area connected to the intersection as a space between the non-blocking area in the intersection and an exiting traffic participant located in the respective exiting area closest to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 63, 60, 51, 49, 64, “the first waiting vehicle H1 is instructed to remain behind the stop line as long as the first turning vehicle 01 is located in the collision area CA, or the target lane has capacity to accommodate the first waiting vehicle H1”);
identifying an entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area with a driving path to the at least one exiting area (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 64, 65, 46, 26, 3, “road users may include not only vehicles, but also bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians, this communication also includes the exchange of data between the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians and the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by motor vehicles”);
determining if the identified entering traffic participant fits the free space in the at least one exiting area connected to the intersection according to its driving path (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 5, 64, 65, 46, 26, “such that the message contains a piece of information depicting the intended maneuver, the direction of travel, position, dimension, type, and/or speed of the first road user ( e.g., of the vehicle), the correlating value may be ascertained precisely”); and
sending a warning message to the identified entering traffic participant in case it does not fit in the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 5, 64, 65, 46, 49, “The traffic controller thus has detailed information, from which the exact position and movement of the vehicles ( e.g., also the lanes that the vehicles take, or select and leave again) in the vicinity of the junction may be determined. As a result, the traffic controller, for example, also has knowledge about the exact vehicle positions and directions of movement of the vehicles within the collision area CA”).
Karacan fails to explicitly discloses a free space.
However, Toda teaches a free space (See at least fig 1-9, ¶ 9, 12, 75, 74, “In FIG. 6, another vehicle ml stops in the added lane L2 and the added lane has a space SPl behind the other vehicle ml where at least the own-vehicle M can stop. For example, when the recognizer 130 has recognized that no other vehicle is present in the added lane L2 or that another vehicle ml is present in the added lane L2, leaving an empty space SPl where the own-vehicle M can stop, the condition determiner 146 determines that the condition 4 is satisfied”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Karacan and include a free space as taught by Toda because it would allow the method to generate a target trajectory for moving out of the congestion of preceding vehicles at a position before the start position of the added lane in the recommended lane and moving to the added lane from the own lane such that the own-vehicle M can stop at the empty space in the added lane (Toda ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 2, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein receiving environment sensor information covering at least one exiting area and at least one entrance area adjacent to the non-blocking area and connected to the intersection comprises receiving environment sensor information from at least one environment sensor of at least one traffic participant of the exiting and entering traffic participants or at least one environment sensor installed at the intersection (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 7, 6, 43, “According to one or more of the present embodiments, the communication system used at such traffic crossings known as vehicle-to-X-communication ( e.g., vehicle-to-roadside, roadside-to-vehicle, V2X), which constitutes a cooperative system of the involved traffic devices, is improved”).
Regarding claim 3, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving environment sensor information comprises receiving environment sensor information from multiple environment sensors, and wherein the method further comprises performing fusion of the environment sensor information received from the multiple environment sensors (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 8, 7, 6, “controllers of intersections are, for example, implemented by RSUs, and the sequence and timing of traffic light cycles change as a function of information that comes from a plurality of sensors that are placed in the ground beneath the streets (e.g., per predefined lane). The information that is detected and reported includes, for example, the vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road”)
Regarding claim 4, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein identifying an entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area with a driving path to the at least one exiting area comprises: identifying the entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area and its driving path to the at least one exiting area based on the received environment sensor information, or identifying the entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area and its driving path to the at least one exiting area based on a message received from the respective traffic participant identifying itself, its position, and its driving path (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 64, 65, 46, 26, 3, “road users may include not only vehicles, but also bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians, this communication also includes the exchange of data between the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians and the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by motor vehicles”).
Regarding claim 5, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining if the identified entering traffic participant fits the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path comprises: determining if the identified entering traffic participant fits the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path based on the received environment sensor information, or determining if the identified entering traffic participant fits the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path based on a message received from the respective traffic participant specifying its size (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 5, 64, 65, 46, 25, 26, “such that the message contains a piece of information depicting the intended maneuver, the direction of travel, position, dimension, type, and/or speed of the first road user ( e.g., of the vehicle), the correlating value may be ascertained precisely”).
Regarding claim 6, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining if the identified entering traffic participant fits the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path comprises determining a size of the identified entering traffic participant and a minimum distance between two traffic participants and comparing the size of the identified entering traffic participant and the minimum distance between two traffic participants to the free space (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 63, 60, 51, 49, 64, “the first waiting vehicle H1 is instructed to remain behind the stop line as long as the first turning vehicle 01 is located in the collision area CA, or the target lane has capacity to accommodate the first waiting vehicle H1”).
Regarding claim 7, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein determining a minimum distance between two traffic participants comprises monitoring distances between adjacent traffic participants in the vicinity of the intersection and determining the minimum distance as average distance between the adjacent traffic participants in the vicinity of the intersection (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 54, 55, 56, 58, 64, 57, “the following parameters may be used individually or in combination: a count of how many vehicles passed through the junction during the last green phase of the traffic light TL; a calculation of an average vehicle length based on the data transmitted by the vehicles; an ascertainment of the average number of vehicles counted that pass through the junction ( e.g., over a certain period of time such
as 10 minutes); mathematical link of the average number with the average length of the vehicles for ascertaining the length or length”).
Regarding claim 8, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein sending a warning message to the identified entering traffic participant in case it does not fit in the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path comprises sending: a warning message for partial intersection blocking in case the identified entering traffic participant partially fits in the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path, a warning message for full intersection blocking in case the identified entering traffic participant does not at all fit in the free space in the at least one exiting area according to its driving path, or a priority vehicle blocking warning message to the identified entering traffic participant or to the priority vehicle in case at least one traffic participant at least partially blocks the non-blocking area (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 3, 5, 14, 64, 65, 46, 49, “The traffic controller thus has detailed information, from which the exact position and movement of the vehicles ( e.g., also the lanes that the vehicles take, or select and leave again) in the vicinity of the junction may be determined. As a result, the traffic controller, for example, also has knowledge about the exact vehicle positions and directions of movement of the vehicles within the collision area CA”).
Regarding claim 9, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises receiving traffic participant data from at least one of the traffic participants, and wherein identifying an entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area with a driving path to the at least one exiting area comprises identifying the entering traffic participant under consideration of the received traffic participant data (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 64, 65, 46, 26, 3, “road users may include not only vehicles, but also bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians, this communication also includes the exchange of data between the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians and the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by motor vehicles”).
Regarding claim 10, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises receiving infrastructure data from the infrastructure, in particular a traffic light, and wherein identifying an entering traffic participant in the at least one entrance area with a driving path to the at least one exiting area comprises identifying the entering traffic participant under consideration of the received infrastructure data. (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 7, 6, “controllers of intersections are, for example, implemented by RSUs, and the sequence and timing of traffic light cycles change as a function of information that comes from a plurality of sensors that are placed in the ground beneath the streets (e.g., per predefined lane). The information that is detected and reported includes, for example, the vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road”).
Regarding claim 11, Karacan discloses the method according to claim 1 further comprising: determining if the intersection is blocked; and sending a warning message to the entering traffic participants (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 5, 6, 25, 19, 20, 23, 25, 64, 65, 46, 49, 3, “by base stations formed by "roadside units" (RSUs) such as traffic lights, for conveying the communication or broadcasting information to information networks or traffic control centers connected to the traffic light. This is referred to as "car to infrastructure" (C2I) communication. Since road users may include not only vehicles, but also bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians, this communication also includes the exchange of data between the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians and the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by motor vehicles”).
Regarding claim 12, Karacan discloses an intersection blocking prevention unit for preventing blocking the intersection with traffic participants in vicinity of the intersection, wherein the intersection blocking prevention unit is configured to perform the method of claim 1 any (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 7, 6, “controllers of intersections are, for example, implemented by RSUs, and the sequence and timing of traffic light cycles change as a function of information that comes from a plurality of sensors that are placed in the ground beneath the streets (e.g., per predefined lane). The information that is detected and reported includes, for example, the vehicle presence, the vehicle direction, and the vehicle speed on a multilane road”).
Regarding claim 13, Karacan discloses an intersection blocking prevention system for preventing blocking the intersection with traffic participants in vicinity of the intersection, comprising: the intersection blocking prevention unit of claim 12; and multiple traffic participants in communication connection with the intersection blocking prevention unit (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 64, 65, 46, 26, 3, “road users may include not only vehicles, but also bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians, this communication also includes the exchange of data between the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by bicycles or bicyclists and pedestrians and the radio transmission/radio reception devices operated by motor vehicles”).
Regarding claim 14, Karacan discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the free space is a space for receiving the entering traffic participant after the exiting traffic participant turned (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 63, 60, 51, 49, 64, “the first waiting vehicle H1 is instructed to remain behind the stop line as long as the first turning vehicle 01 is located in the collision area CA, or the target lane has capacity to accommodate the first waiting vehicle H1”).
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 extension fee 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 LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665