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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 08/18/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited references Kim (US 2019/0344791 A1) and Oka (US 2006/0047410 A1).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Noda (US 2011/0130936 A1) in further view Kim (US 2019/0344791 A1) and in further view Oka (US 2006/0047410 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noda discloses an apparatus, comprising: a sensor device; a memory storing at least one instruction; and a controller operatively coupled to the sensor device and the memory, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: (see Noda paras “0007”, “0023-0029”, “0032” and “0067” “the collision avoidance support apparatus”, “the collision avoidance support system 1 provides a support for avoiding a collision of the own vehicle when the own vehicle moves to a next traffic lane”),
determine a first driving speed of a host vehicle comprising the apparatus (see Noda para “0038” “Then, information on a travel speed (i.e., a vehicle speed) of the own vehicle is acquired from the wheel speed sensor 14 (S120: corresponding to a speed acquisition unit in claim language)”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach determine, using the sensor device, a second driving speed of a plurality of other vehicles which travel in a first adjacent lane that is adjacent to a lane in which the host vehicle is traveling; determine, based on the first driving speed and the second driving speed, whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to a congestion state.
However, Kim teaches determine, using the sensor device, a second driving speed of a plurality of other vehicles which travel in a first adjacent lane that is adjacent to a lane in which the host vehicle is traveling (see Kim paras “0023” and “0064-0065” “The road congestion determiner 220 may confirm whether the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is in a congested state. Specifically, the road congestion determiner 220 may check or confirm the congestion state of the road based on the speed of the host vehicle received from the vehicle sensor 110, the speed of another vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle” and “if the speed of the another vehicles adjacent to the host vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined congestion velocity, and/or the distance between the other vehicles or the distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined congestion distance, and/or the number of other vehicles present around the host vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the road congestion determiner 220 may determine the corresponding road is in a congestion state”),
determine, based on the first driving speed and the second driving speed, whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to a congestion state (see Kim paras “0023” and “0064-0065” “The road congestion determiner 220 may confirm whether the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is in a congested state. Specifically, the road congestion determiner 220 may check or confirm the congestion state of the road based on the speed of the host vehicle received from the vehicle sensor 110, the speed of another vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle” and “if the speed of the another vehicles adjacent to the host vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined congestion velocity, and/or the distance between the other vehicles or the distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined congestion distance, and/or the number of other vehicles present around the host vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the road congestion determiner 220 may determine the corresponding road is in a congestion state”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine congestion state based on the speeds of the vehicles in the adjacent to the host vehicle” as taught by Kim (paras. [0064-0065]) in order to more accurately identify whether the road is in a congested state.
But modified Noda fails to explicitly teach while the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state, perform biased driving control in a direction opposite to the first adjacent lane or lane change control into a second adjacent lane based on at least one of: whether the host vehicle is located before a starting point of a congestion section comprising the plurality of other vehicles, or a distance from the host vehicle to an end point of the congestion section.
However, Oka teaches while the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state, perform biased driving control in a direction opposite to the first adjacent lane or lane change control into a second adjacent lane based on at least one of: whether the host vehicle is located before a starting point of a congestion section comprising the plurality of other vehicles, or a distance from the host vehicle to an end point of the congestion section (see Oka paras “0034-0038” and “0041-0045” “the traveling control device 1 comprises a laser-radar sensor 3 operative to detect a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and a vehicle traveling in front of the own vehicle, a relative speed between the own vehicle's speed and a vehicle speed of another vehicle traveling on a lane next to the own vehicle's traveling lane, a receiver 5 for VICS (the road traffic information communication system) to receive road-traffic information including a traffic congestion, a vehicle speed sensor 7 operative to detect the own vehicle's speed”, “when it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane” and “a traffic congestion determiner 19 operative to determine whether the traffic congestion occurs or not on the next lane, a cutting-into probability calculator 21 which calculates a probability (hereinafter, referred to as "cutting-into probability") of another vehicle traveling on the next lane cutting into the traveling lane of the own vehicle when it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane, a shifting controller 23 operative to shift the traveling position of the own vehicle toward an opposite side (the right side in FIG. 1) from the next lane by controlling the steering device 15 when the vehicle speed control device performs the vehicle speed control of the own vehicle and it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to control the travelling position of the host vehicle away from the adjacent/next lane” as taught by Oka (paras. [0034-0038] - [0041-0045]) in order to avoid a collision with a vehicle cutting into the host vehicle’s lane from the congested adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 14, Noda discloses A vehicle control method, comprising: (see Noda paras “0007”, “0023-0029”, “0032” and “0067” “the collision avoidance support apparatus”, “the collision avoidance support system 1 provides a support for avoiding a collision of the own vehicle when the own vehicle moves to a next traffic lane”),
determining, by a controller, a first driving speed of a host vehicle comprising the controller (see Noda para “0038” “Then, information on a travel speed (i.e., a vehicle speed) of the own vehicle is acquired from the wheel speed sensor 14 (S120: corresponding to a speed acquisition unit in claim language)”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach determining, by the controller and using a sensor device, a second driving speed of a plurality of other vehicles which travel in a first adjacent lane that is adjacent to a lane in which the host vehicle is traveling; determining, by the controller and based on the first driving speed and the second driving speed, whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to a congestion state.
However, Kim teaches determining, by the controller and using a sensor device, a second driving speed of a plurality of other vehicles which travel in a first adjacent lane that is adjacent to a lane in which the host vehicle is traveling (see Kim paras “0023” and “0064-0065” “The road congestion determiner 220 may confirm whether the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is in a congested state. Specifically, the road congestion determiner 220 may check or confirm the congestion state of the road based on the speed of the host vehicle received from the vehicle sensor 110, the speed of another vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle” and “if the speed of the another vehicles adjacent to the host vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined congestion velocity, and/or the distance between the other vehicles or the distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined congestion distance, and/or the number of other vehicles present around the host vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the road congestion determiner 220 may determine the corresponding road is in a congestion state”),
determining, by the controller and based on the first driving speed and the second driving speed, whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to a congestion state (see Kim paras “0023” and “0064-0065” “The road congestion determiner 220 may confirm whether the road on which the host vehicle is traveling is in a congested state. Specifically, the road congestion determiner 220 may check or confirm the congestion state of the road based on the speed of the host vehicle received from the vehicle sensor 110, the speed of another vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle” and “if the speed of the another vehicles adjacent to the host vehicle is equal to or lower than a predetermined congestion velocity, and/or the distance between the other vehicles or the distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined congestion distance, and/or the number of other vehicles present around the host vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, the road congestion determiner 220 may determine the corresponding road is in a congestion state”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine congestion state based on the speeds of the vehicles in the adjacent to the host vehicle” as taught by Kim (paras. [0064-0065]) in order to more accurately identify whether the road is in a congested state.
But modified Noda fails to explicitly teach while the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state, performing, by the controller, biased driving control in a direction opposite to the first adjacent lane or lane change control into a second adjacent lane, wherein one of the biased driving control or the lane change control is selected based on at least one of: a relative position between the host vehicle and a congestion section comprising the plurality of other vehicles, or a distance from the host vehicle to an end point of the congestion section.
However, Oka teaches while the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state, performing, by the controller, biased driving control in a direction opposite to the first adjacent lane or lane change control into a second adjacent lane, wherein one of the biased driving control or the lane change control is selected based on at least one of: a relative position between the host vehicle and a congestion section comprising the plurality of other vehicles, or a distance from the host vehicle to an end point of the congestion section (see Oka paras “0034-0038” and “0041-0045” “the traveling control device 1 comprises a laser-radar sensor 3 operative to detect a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and a vehicle traveling in front of the own vehicle, a relative speed between the own vehicle's speed and a vehicle speed of another vehicle traveling on a lane next to the own vehicle's traveling lane, a receiver 5 for VICS (the road traffic information communication system) to receive road-traffic information including a traffic congestion, a vehicle speed sensor 7 operative to detect the own vehicle's speed”, “when it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane” and “a traffic congestion determiner 19 operative to determine whether the traffic congestion occurs or not on the next lane, a cutting-into probability calculator 21 which calculates a probability (hereinafter, referred to as "cutting-into probability") of another vehicle traveling on the next lane cutting into the traveling lane of the own vehicle when it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane, a shifting controller 23 operative to shift the traveling position of the own vehicle toward an opposite side (the right side in FIG. 1) from the next lane by controlling the steering device 15 when the vehicle speed control device performs the vehicle speed control of the own vehicle and it is determined by the traffic congestion determiner 19 that the traffic congestion occurs on the next lane”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to control the travelling position of the host vehicle away from the adjacent/next lane” as taught by Oka (paras. [0034-0038] - [0041-0045]) in order to avoid a collision with a vehicle cutting into the host vehicle’s lane from the congested adjacent lane.
Claim 2-4, 7, 15-17 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Noda (US 2011/0130936 A1) in further view Kim (US 2019/0344791 A1) and in further view Oka (US 2006/0047410 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, in further view Talamonti et al (US 2018/0284266 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Noda discloses wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: identify, using the sensor device, external objects included in an area, in the first adjacent lane, that is distanced by a first distance in front of the host vehicle and that is distanced by a second distance behind the host vehicle (see Noda paras “0023-0029”, “0030”, “0051” and “0067” “a lane change control unit 10 (a collision avoidance support apparatus) and side sensors 11 to 13, a wheel speed sensor 14, a blinker 15, an alarm 21, an engine control unit 31, and a brake control unit 32, as shown in FIG. 1. In addition, the side sensors 11 to 13 are implemented as a front side sensor 11, a body side sensor 12, and a rear side sensor 13” , “In the lane change support process, the position of the other vehicle in the adjacent lane is acquired from each of the side sensors 11 to 13 (S110: corresponding to a vehicle detection unit in claim language)” and “In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the own vehicle travels at 60 km/h, and the other vehicle comes closer to the own vehicle at 80 km/h from the back of the own vehicle”),
determine the second driving speed based on driving speeds of the identified plurality of other vehicles (see Noda para “0038” “detection results of the relative speed of the other vehicle existing in the adjacent lane relative to the own vehicle are acquired from each of the side sensors 11 to 13 (S130: corresponding to a relative speed acquisition unit in claim language)”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach identify a plurality of objects in which a share for the first adjacent lane is greater than or equal to a specified rate and a difference in movement speed with other objects is within a specified range, among the external objects as the plurality of other vehicles.
However, Talamonti teaches identify a plurality of objects in which a share for the first adjacent lane is greater than or equal to a specified rate and a difference in movement speed with other objects is within a specified range, among the external objects as the plurality of other vehicles (see Talamonti paras “0045-0047”, ”0051-0054” and “0061” “computing device 115 can determine a plurality of virtual steering path polynomials 216, 218 for steering vehicle 110 into adjacent lane 220”, “Computing device 115 can determine traffic lane speed for an adjacent lane 220 relative to vehicle 110 speed… that adjacent traffic lanes can be to the left or right of a current traffic lane 206, and traffic speed in adjacent traffic lanes can be faster or slower than the vehicle 110 current speed, wherein traffic lane speed is typically faster in left adjacent traffic lanes and slower in right adjacent traffic lanes” and via para “0079” “determine that continuing to pilot vehicle 110 along virtual steerable path polynomial 618 would cause a collision with third vehicle 624 or fourth vehicle 626, or cause vehicle 110 to assume a position in adjacent lane 628 that was closer to third vehicle 624 or fourth vehicle 626 than predetermined limits. As with other lane change maneuvers discussed above in relation to FIGS. 2-5, canceling a lane change maneuver can be understood symmetrically with respect to adjacent right lanes and adjacent left lanes and with adjacent lane traffic that is slower or faster than vehicle 110”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0051-0054] - [0079-0080]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 3, Noda fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: identify, based on an identification of a right lane of the lane, a first area where a left line in the right lane of the lane is substantially the same as a right line of the lane as the adjacent lane; or identify, based on an identification of a left lane of the lane, a second area where a right line in the left lane of the lane is substantially the same as a left line of the lane as the adjacent lane.
However, Talamonti teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: identify, as the first adjacent lane, a first area of a right lane corresponding to a section in which a right line of the lane is used as a left line of the right lane; or identify, as the first adjacent lane, a second area of a left lane corresponding to a section in which a left line of the lane is used as a right line of the left lane (see Talamonti paras “0061” and “0072-0073” “FIG. 3 is a diagram of a traffic scene 300, with a vehicle 110 being piloted in a traffic lane 306 defined by a right side marker 308 and a lane marker 310 based on steerable path polynomial 314. Traffic scene 300 includes a virtual steerable path polynomial 316, defined to start at a point p0 to coincide with steerable path polynomial 314 for a period of time, and then diverge from steerable path polynomial 314 at point p1 and end with a vehicle 110 trajectory in adjacent lane 320 defined by left side marker 312 and center marker 310 at a lane width distance Y0 from steerable path polynomial 314 with at a direction consistent with adjacent lane 320 and with a speed consistent with adjacent lane 320 traffic.” and “FIG. 4 is a diagram of two traffic scenes 400, 402. Traffic scene 400 includes a vehicle 110 traveling in a lane 406 defined by lane markers 410, 412 along steerable path polynomial 418. Traffic scene 400 includes virtual steerable path polynomials 420, 422 that represent lane change maneuvers to adjacent lanes 424, 426, defined by left side marker 414, lane markers 410, 412 and right side marker 416”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0061] - [0072-0073]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 4, Noda fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: perform clustering based on a speed of each of the plurality of other vehicles vehicle and a separation distance between the plurality of other vehicles to identify at least one segment; and further use an average speed of each of the at least one segment to determine whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state.
However, Talamonti teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: perform clustering based on a speed of each of the plurality of other vehicles vehicle and a separation distance between the plurality of other vehicles to identify at least one segment; and further use an average speed of each of the at least one segment to determine whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state (see Talamonti paras “0045-0047” and “0053” “the second vehicle 204 can be piloted in traffic lane 206 on a trajectory, wherein the speed of second vehicle 204 is less than the speed of vehicle 110. Rather than braking to a stop behind second vehicle 204, computing device 115 in vehicle 110 can adjust the trajectory of vehicle 110 in such a fashion as to position vehicle 110 at distance d from second vehicle 204 matching the speed of vehicle 204 to maintain a separation between vehicle 204 and second vehicle 204 of at least distance d. Piloting a vehicle in this fashion can be one mode of operation of an adaptive speed control program in computing device 115” and “Computing device 115 can determine traffic lane speed for an adjacent lane 220 relative to vehicle 110 speed and determine when lane change maneuvers can be executed while staying within constraints on lateral and longitudinal accelerations and legal constraints on lane changing based on lane markings including lane divider 21”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine distance between the own vheilce and another vehicle in the same or adjacent lane” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0045-0047] - [0053]) in order to perform changing lane safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 7, Noda discloses based on the second driving speed being maintained during a first time or more in a state in which the second driving speed is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a specified value from the first driving speed (see Noda paras “0047” and “0062” “the front and rear edges of each of the base areas are shifted backward according to the relative speed if the speed of the other vehicle is greater than the own vehicle, or the front and rear edges of each of the base areas are shifted forward if the speed of the other vehicle is smaller than the own vehicle according to the relative speed”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: determine that the adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state.
However, Talamonti teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: determine that the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state (see Talamonti paras “0089-0093” “a process 1800 for displaying a prompt based on a lane change maneuver based on determining traffic in an adjacent lane” and “determine a lane change maneuver based on the adaptive speed control and the determined traffic in adjacent lanes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0053] - [0089-0093]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 15, Noda discloses identifying, by the controller and using the sensor device, external objects included in an area, in the first adjacent lane, that is distanced by a first distance in front of the host vehicle and that is distanced by a second distance behind the host vehicle (see Noda paras “0023-0029”, “0030”, “0051” and “0067” “a lane change control unit 10 (a collision avoidance support apparatus) and side sensors 11 to 13, a wheel speed sensor 14, a blinker 15, an alarm 21, an engine control unit 31, and a brake control unit 32, as shown in FIG. 1. In addition, the side sensors 11 to 13 are implemented as a front side sensor 11, a body side sensor 12, and a rear side sensor 13” , “In the lane change support process, the position of the other vehicle in the adjacent lane is acquired from each of the side sensors 11 to 13 (S110: corresponding to a vehicle detection unit in claim language)” and “In the example shown in FIG. 5A, the own vehicle travels at 60 km/h, and the other vehicle comes closer to the own vehicle at 80 km/h from the back of the own vehicle”),
and identifying, by the controller, the second driving speed based on driving speeds of the identified plurality of other vehicles (see Noda para “0038” “detection results of the relative speed of the other vehicle existing in the adjacent lane relative to the own vehicle are acquired from each of the side sensors 11 to 13 (S130: corresponding to a relative speed acquisition unit in claim language)”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach identifying, by the controller, at least one object, in which a share for the adjacent lane is greater than or equal to a specified rate and a difference in movement speed with other objects is within a specified range, among the external objects as the plurality of other vehicles.
However, Talamonti teaches identifying, by the controller, at least one object, in which a share for the adjacent lane is greater than or equal to a specified rate and a difference in movement speed with other objects is within a specified range, among the external objects as the plurality of other vehicles (see Talamonti paras “0045-0047”, ”0051-0054” and “0061” “computing device 115 can determine a plurality of virtual steering path polynomials 216, 218 for steering vehicle 110 into adjacent lane 220”, “Computing device 115 can determine traffic lane speed for an adjacent lane 220 relative to vehicle 110 speed… that adjacent traffic lanes can be to the left or right of a current traffic lane 206, and traffic speed in adjacent traffic lanes can be faster or slower than the vehicle 110 current speed, wherein traffic lane speed is typically faster in left adjacent traffic lanes and slower in right adjacent traffic lanes” and via para “0079” “determine that continuing to pilot vehicle 110 along virtual steerable path polynomial 618 would cause a collision with third vehicle 624 or fourth vehicle 626, or cause vehicle 110 to assume a position in adjacent lane 628 that was closer to third vehicle 624 or fourth vehicle 626 than predetermined limits. As with other lane change maneuvers discussed above in relation to FIGS. 2-5, canceling a lane change maneuver can be understood symmetrically with respect to adjacent right lanes and adjacent left lanes and with adjacent lane traffic that is slower or faster than vehicle 110”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0051-0054] - [0079-0080]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 16, Noda fails to explicitly teach identifying, by the controller as the first adjacent lane, a first area of a right lane corresponding to a section in which a right line of the lane is used as a left line of the right lane; or identify, as the first adjacent lane, a second area of a left lane corresponding to a section in which a left line of the lane is used as a right line of the left lane.
However, Talamonti teaches identifying, by the controller as the first adjacent lane, a first area of a right lane corresponding to a section in which a right line of the lane is used as a left line of the right lane; or identify, as the first adjacent lane, a second area of a left lane corresponding to a section in which a left line of the lane is used as a right line of the left lane (see Talamonti paras “0039”, “0047” and “0053” “Computing device 115 can determine traffic lane speed for an adjacent lane 220 relative to vehicle 110 speed and determine when lane change maneuvers can be executed while staying within constraints on lateral and longitudinal accelerations and legal constraints on lane changing based on lane markings including lane divider 210, for example. Lane markings can be determined by computing device 115 using video sensors included in vehicle 110, for example, to determine when vehicle 110 can be allowed to execute a lane change maneuver by determining the number (single or double), color (yellow or white) and configuration (solid or dashed) of the lane divider 210”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0039] - [0047]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 17, Noda fails to explicitly teach performing, by the controller, clustering based on a speed of each of the plurality of other vehicles and a separation distance between the plurality of other vehicles to identify at least one segment; and further using, by the controller, an average speed of each of the at least one segment to determine whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state.
However, Talamonti teaches performing, by the controller, clustering based on a speed of each of the plurality of other vehicles and a separation distance between the plurality of other vehicles to identify at least one segment; and further using, by the controller, an average speed of each of the at least one segment to determine whether the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state (see Talamonti paras “0045-0047” and “0053” “the second vehicle 204 can be piloted in traffic lane 206 on a trajectory, wherein the speed of second vehicle 204 is less than the speed of vehicle 110. Rather than braking to a stop behind second vehicle 204, computing device 115 in vehicle 110 can adjust the trajectory of vehicle 110 in such a fashion as to position vehicle 110 at distance d from second vehicle 204 matching the speed of vehicle 204 to maintain a separation between vehicle 204 and second vehicle 204 of at least distance d. Piloting a vehicle in this fashion can be one mode of operation of an adaptive speed control program in computing device 115” and “Computing device 115 can determine traffic lane speed for an adjacent lane 220 relative to vehicle 110 speed and determine when lane change maneuvers can be executed while staying within constraints on lateral and longitudinal accelerations and legal constraints on lane changing based on lane markings including lane divider 21”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine distance between the own vheilce and another vehicle in the same or adjacent lane” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0045-0047] - [0053]) in order to perform changing lane safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 20, Noda discloses based on the second driving speed being maintained during a first time or more in a state in which the second driving speed is smaller than a value obtained by subtracting a specified value from the first driving speed (see Noda paras “0047” and “0062” “the front and rear edges of each of the base areas are shifted backward according to the relative speed if the speed of the other vehicle is greater than the own vehicle, or the front and rear edges of each of the base areas are shifted forward if the speed of the other vehicle is smaller than the own vehicle according to the relative speed”),
but Noda fails to explicitly teach determining, by the controller, that the adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state.
However, Talamonti teaches determining, by the controller, that the first adjacent lane corresponds to the congestion state (see Talamonti paras “0089-0093” “a process 1800 for displaying a prompt based on a lane change maneuver based on determining traffic in an adjacent lane” and “determine a lane change maneuver based on the adaptive speed control and the determined traffic in adjacent lanes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to determine the traffic in the adjacent lane prior to changing lanes” as taught by Talamonti (paras. [0053] - [0089-0093]) in order to perform lane change safely and avoid any collision with the vehicles in the adjacent lane.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Noda (US 2011/0130936 A1) in further view Kim (US 2019/0344791 A1) and in further view Oka (US 2006/0047410 A1) in further view Talamonti et al (US 2018/0284266 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Goto (US 12,371,026 B2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Noda fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: identify a point corresponding to a first distance in front of the host vehicle in the first adjacent lane as an end point of a segment corresponding to an identified cluster; and identify a point corresponding to a second distance behind the host vehicle in the first adjacent lane as a starting point of the segment corresponding to the identified cluster.
However, Goto teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: identify a point corresponding to a first distance in front of the host vehicle in the first adjacent lane as an end point of a segment corresponding to an identified cluster; and identify a point corresponding to a second distance behind the host vehicle in the first adjacent lane as a starting point of the segment corresponding to the identified cluster (see Goto Claim 1 “a control device that sets a travel route of an own vehicle, wherein the control device is configured to, when a preceding vehicle or a train of a plurality of vehicles including the preceding vehicle, traveling immediately ahead of the own vehicle at a traveling speed no greater than a predetermined speed, is present on a traveling route of the own vehicle, and further no other vehicle is traveling on the traveling route within a range of a first distance forward from the preceding vehicle or a leading vehicle of the train of a plurality of vehicles, set, as the travel route, a route in which, after overtaking the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle, the own vehicle enters ahead of the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle… the preceding vehicle or the train of a plurality of vehicles is present on the travel route, and further no other vehicle is present on the travel route within the range of the first distance ahead of the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle of the train of a plurality of vehicles, and a distance between the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle and an end point of a connection portion of the branch lane and the travel lane is a second distance or more, set, as the travel route, a route in which, after overtaking the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle, the own vehicle enters ahead of the preceding vehicle or the leading vehicle” regarding defining a front boundary (ahead distance) of a group of vehicles (i.e, clustering at least one vehicle ahead) and distinguish a second distance behind and ahead marking the rear and front limits of the congestion portion (i.e., segment)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “to provide a vehicle traveling assistance device capable of allowing the own vehicle to continue traveling without stopping the own vehicle or decelerating the own vehicle to an extremely low speed when a stopped vehicle or a vehicle traveling at an extremely low speed is present on the travel route of the own vehicle” as taught by Goto (paras. [0045-0047] - [0053]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Noda (US 2011/0130936 A1) in further view Kim (US 2019/0344791 A1) and in further view Oka (US 2006/0047410 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tsuruta et al (US 2013/0226432 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Noda fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: perform deceleration driving control for the host vehicle based on an average driving speed according to the congestion state, after a determination that both of a left lane and a right lane of the lane correspond to the congestion state or a determination that it is impossible to perform the lane change control.
However, Tsuruta teaches wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the controller, cause the apparatus to: perform deceleration driving control for the host vehicle based on an average driving speed according to the congestion state, after a determination that both of a left lane and a right lane of the lane correspond to the congestion state or a determination that it is impossible to perform the lane change control (see Tsuruta paras “0060-0065” and “0075-0078” “the present vehicle can be decelerated. Moreover, when the safe inter-vehicle distance FL is not secured and the avoidance region SS does not exist” and “where the average traveling speed of the vehicles is slower than that of the present lane among traffic lanes being adjacent to the both side of the present lane, is the avoidance region SS. It is noted that the traffic lane having slower average traveling speed of the vehicles may be determined by using a sensor such as image sensor or a predetermined traffic lane can be determined, e.g. left side traffic lane is determined to be the predetermined traffic lane when the vehicle is produced for left-hand traffic”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Noda for apparatus, program and method for collision avoidance support “for controlling the present vehicle to accelerate or decelerate according to whether lane change is possible or not” as taught by Tsuruta (paras. [0060-0065] - [0075-0078] in order to maintain a position where the present vehicle is capable of entering the avoidance region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claims 6, 8-12 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights