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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the patent application filed on February 24, 2026.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application and claims 4-6 have been added by the applicant. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 112(f) interpretation and the 101 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, upon further search and consideration, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 20190064830 A1) in view of Jurca et al. (US 20180257647 A1). See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as stated above due to dependency. Newly added claims 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 20190064830 A1) in view of Jurca et al. (US 20180257647 A1) and Ito et al. (US 10988081 B2). See detailed rejection below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 20190064830 A1) in view of Jurca et al. (US 20180257647 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2:
With respect to claim 1, Funayama teaches:
plan the path by the path planning model based on a detection result of an on-vehicle sensor of the vehicle and map information; (“The autonomous driving ECU 50 generates a travel plan along the target route set in advance based on the position information on the host vehicle measured by the GPS receiver 1, the map information in the map database 4, the surrounding environment (the position of another vehicle, or the like) of the host vehicle recognized from the result of detection performed by the external sensor 2, and the vehicle state (vehicle speed, yaw rate, and the like) recognized from the result of detection performed by the internal sensor 3.” [0045]), where a travel plan is generated using vehicle sensor information and map information.
However, Funayama does not teach, but Junca teaches:
calculate a reference path based on at least one of the detection result of the on-vehicle sensor and the map information, the reference path comprising a trajectory of a preceding vehicle in a lane in which the vehicle is traveling with respect to the lane, or a trajectory corresponding to a vehicle speed range that can be taken by the vehicle based on a position of the vehicle in the lane in which the vehicle is traveling, a relative position, and a relative speed with respect to another vehicle; (“Image data is received from one or more vehicle cameras. The image data includes image frames with image data of the neighboring vehicle. The image data is scanned for lane markings and lane boundaries of a lane in which the present vehicle is driving... If image data corresponding to lane markings is detected in the image frames it is determined if the detected lane markings are suitable for deriving a trajectory of the neighboring vehicle relative to the lane markings. In a simple embodiment, this involves detecting if the length of the lane markers in the image data is sufficient to establish a reference direction. If it is determined that the detected lane markings are suitable to derive the trajectory, a reference trajectory is derived from the detected lane markings. In an exemplary embodiment, the image data is processed frame by frame and the positions of the lane markers in the respective image frame are used as a reference trajectory. In another embodiment, the position of the lane markers is tracked, for example with a Kalman filter, and the reference trajectory is derived from the tracked trajectory of the lane markers. If no lane markers are detected or if the lane markers are not suitable for deriving a reference trajectory, the reference trajectory is derived from a motion of the present vehicle. The motion of the present vehicle may be derived, among others, from motion sensor data, such as the steering angle and the vehicle speed, from data of a positioning system such as GPS, from the apparent motion of stationary objects in the image frames of the vehicle camera or from a combination of those data.” [0027-0029], “the reference trajectory is derived from an image frame sequence of at least one lane marker, provided that the lane marker is present and suitable for providing a reference trajectory or a relative motion with respect to the reference trajectory. According to a further embodiment, the reference trajectory is derived from motion sensor data of the present vehicle, such as speed and steering angle sensors.” [0042]), where a reference path is calculated using vehicle sensors and map information such as GPS information. This also shows that the reference path can be the trajectory of a neighboring vehicle in a lane in which the vehicle is traveling with respect to the lane, or a trajectory corresponding to a vehicle speed range that can be taken by the vehicle based on a position of the vehicle in the lane in which the vehicle is traveling, a relative position, and a relative speed with respect to obstacles on the road. (“FIG. 2 shows a second example of an anomalous trajectory 15′ of a preceding vehicle 10 on a road 14, which has markings 11, 12, 13 for traffic lanes. The preceding vehicle 10 is driving in front of a present vehicle 9, which is driving on a straight trajectory 16. According to one method of the present specification, the anomalous trajectory 15′ is detected by using the reference provided by the traffic lanes 11, 12, 13.” [0104], shows that the neighboring vehicle can be a preceding vehicle, and the reference path can be based off of the road information of the preceding vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Jurca’s communications because (“1) Detect if a vehicle in front moves in a sinuous line or deviates from its traffic lane. 2) Detect if a rear vehicle moves in a sinuous line or deviates from its traffic lane. 3) Detect if the vehicles on the lateral traffic lanes move in a sinuous line or deviate from their traffic lanes. 4) Identify the vehicles whose drivers are affected by fatigue and/or other adverse conditions in a hazardous grade based on the moving trajectory of the vehicle. 5) Inform or alert the driver when a potentially dangerous vehicle is detected in the close vicinity, e.g., before an overtaking maneuver” See Jurca [0009-0013]), to improve autonomous vehicle path planning relative to surrounding vehicles.
Funayama further teaches:
an influence degree calculation unit configured to calculate an influence degree with which a periphery of the vehicle is influenced by autonomous traveling of the vehicle along the planned path based on a comparison result between the planned path and the reference path; (“If the host vehicle M performs the autonomous driving by the autonomous driving ECU 50, the shielding influence degree calculation unit 15 may calculate the shielding influence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d based on the travel plan in the autonomous driving (a content of control set in advance) and the shield information. The shielding influence degree calculation unit 15 can calculate the shielding influence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d by predicting the situation of the shield such as other vehicles (the relative position with respect to the host vehicle M) at the candidate passing position d based on the travel plan in the autonomous driving and the shield information.” [0070]), which states that a host vehicle path is determined along with the shield influence degree of the vehicle path, where the shield is any external object to the host vehicle, for example, other vehicles or obstacles. (“In the situation illustrated in FIG. 4, the shielding influence degree calculation unit 15 predicts that the host vehicle Md is surrounded by other vehicles N3d to N7d at the candidate passing position d by the fact that the vehicle speeds of other surrounding vehicles N3 to N7 are also decreased due to the influence of the red light of the traffic signal based on the travel plan in the autonomous driving and the shield information. The shielding influence degree calculation unit 15 calculates the shielding influence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d based on the prediction of the situation of the shield at the candidate passing position d.” [0073]), where this shows an example in which the host vehicle is influenced as it is being slowed down by being surrounded by the shields, or the other vehicles. Therefore, the position of the vehicle is different from the reference position of the vehicle, and the difference is calculated as the shielding influence degree.
a threshold value calculation unit configured to calculate an influence degree threshold value which is a threshold value of the influence degree based on a peripheral situation of the vehicle; (“In S30, the confidence degree calculation ECU 10 determines whether or not the difference value obtained by subtracting the shielding influence degree from the reference confidence degree is equal to or higher than the difference threshold value using the confidence degree calculation unit 16.” [0094], “The reference confidence degree calculation unit 13 may change the value of the reference confidence degree step by step by providing a plurality of number threshold values.” [0058]), “if the numbers of objects in the sensor detection range E are the same, the reference confidence degree calculation unit 13 can calculate the reference confidence degree as a higher value when the distance to the closest object is shorter than the distance threshold value compared to a case when the distance to the closest object is equal to or longer than the distance threshold value” [0063]), which shows a plurality of threshold values can be used for comparing the influence degree of the vehicle.
a notification controller configured to issue a notification to an occupant of the vehicle when the influence degree is equal to or greater than the influence degree threshold value; (“The confidence degree calculation unit 16 may notify the driver of, or may display the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d via the HMI 7 according to the driver's request. The confidence degree calculation unit 16 may transmit the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d to the autonomous driving ECU 50” [0081], “If it is determined that the difference value obtained by subtracting the shielding influence degree from the reference confidence degree is equal to or higher than the difference threshold value (YES in S30), the confidence degree calculation ECU 10 moves the process to S32. If it is not determined that the difference value obtained by subtracting the shielding influence degree from the reference confidence degree is equal to or higher than the difference threshold value (NO in S30), the confidence degree calculation ECU 10 moves the process to S34.” [0094]), where an occupant of the vehicle can be notified based on the shielding influence degree. The notification is based on the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle, in which the confidence degree is calculated from determining the shielding influence degree.
With respect to claim 2, Funayama in combination with Jurca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Funayama and Jurca teaches an autonomous driving system of claim 1. Funayama does not teach, but Jurca teaches:
wherein, when there are other vehicles around the vehicle, the notification controller is configured to issue the notification to the other vehicles; (“the method includes triggering an alert action if it is determined that the trajectory of the neighboring vehicle is an anomalous trajectory. In particular, the alert action may comprise slowing down the present vehicle, displaying an alert message on the instrument cluster of the present vehicle, sounding an alert signal inside the present vehicle, flashing the front lights of the present vehicle, sounding the horn of the present vehicle, sending a radio message via a radio transmitter of the present vehicle, or forwarding the warning message to a collision warning system.” [0043], “6) In case of critical hazardous situations, alert the driver from the hazardous vehicle using the existing communication channels, such as visual, acoustic and radio frequency transmissions.” [0014]), which shows an example of a host vehicle’s path being influenced by a surrounding vehicle, and the vehicle can send a notification to the surrounding vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Jurca’s communications because (“6) In case of critical hazardous situations, alert the driver from the hazardous vehicle using the existing communication channels, such as visual, acoustic and radio frequency transmissions.” See Jurca [0014]), where vehicle to vehicle communications would improve driving situations.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 20190064830 A1) in view of Jurca et al. (US 20180257647 A1) and Buburuzan et al. (US 10964216 B2).
Regarding claim 3:
With respect to claim 3, Funayama in combination with Jurca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. The combination of Funayama and Jurca teaches an autonomous driving system of claim 2. Funayama and Jurca do not teach, but Buburuzan further teaches:
wherein, when at least one of the other vehicles around the vehicle are influenced by the autonomous traveling of the vehicle along the planned path, the notification controller is configured to issue the notification only to the other vehicle influenced by the autonomous traveling among the other vehicles; (“providing information about a probable driving intention of the first vehicle (100), based on the information about the probable trajectory of the first vehicle, the position data, the information about the surroundings and the map data; and transmitting the information about the probable driving intention of the first vehicle to a second vehicle and/or one or more vehicle-external entities.” (column 3, lines 46-52), "The interface 16 could correspond to an interface for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, for example. The interface 16 could, by way of example, be configured to provide the information about the probable driving intention to further vehicles in surroundings around the vehicle 100.” (column 8, lines 55-59), “Based on the information about the probable trajectory of the first vehicle, the position data and the information about the surroundings, information about a probable driving intention of the first vehicle (100) is provided (operation at s410). Finally, (wireless) transmission (operation at s412) of the information about the probable driving intention of the first vehicle to a second vehicle and/or one or more vehicle-external entities is effected.” (column 12, lines 12-20)), this shows when the trajectory path of the host vehicle could affect a second vehicle or other surrounding vehicles, the host vehicle issues a notification to the second vehicle. The second vehicle is influenced by the driving trajectory of the host vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a notification is issued to the surrounding vehicles when the surrounding vehicles are influenced by the host vehicle in an attempt to provide an improved system or method, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the product as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system or product where a notification is issued to the surrounding vehicles when the surrounding vehicles are influenced by the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Buburuzan’s communications because (“to determine the driving recommendation by comparing the probable trajectory of the vehicle 200a with the probable driving intention of the at least one further vehicle 100 and to determine the driving recommendation such that a collision is avoided or a regular flow of traffic is made possible.” See Buburuzan (column 10, lines 48-53)).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funayama et al. (US 20190064830 A1) in view of Jurca et al. (US 20180257647 A1) and Ito et al. (US 10988081 B2).
Regarding claim 4-6:
With respect to claim 4, Funayama in combination with Jurca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Funayama and Jurca teaches an autonomous driving system of claim 1. Funayama and Jurca do not teach, but Ito further teaches:
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to issue the notification to the occupant of the vehicle that the planned path conforms with the peripheral situation of the vehicle by using a display or a speaker; (“The receiver section 34 receives signals such as map data transmitted by the server 16 and other external devices. The receiver section 34 also receives data relating to the surrounding environment of the vehicle 12 transmitted from an optical camera, a surroundings detection sensor, and the like. For example, the receiver section 34 receives data regarding the presence or absence of congestion on a travel route from the server 16.” (col 3, lines 37-44) “The progress status determination section 38 determines whether or not the driving status of the vehicle 12 is conforming to plan, based on the current position of the vehicle 12 identified by the position identification section 36, and a preset destination.” (col 3, lines 49-53), “At step S112, the CPU 18 notifies the occupant of the driving status. Namely, the CPU 18 uses the output section 41 to perform audio notification to the occupant regarding whether the driving status is on schedule or behind schedule through the speaker, and ends the notification processing.” (col 4, lines 63-67), “As described above, in the notification processing of the present exemplary embodiment, notification that the driving status is conforming to plan is performed at regular intervals, and notification that a representative point has been passed is also performed.” (col 5, lines 1-5)), where there is a notification issued to the occupant of the vehicle that driving status is conforming to plan which is when the vehicle is on a planned path and vehicle sensors can use sensor information of the vehicle surroundings to determined controlling the vehicle on a planned path, which is comparable to a planned path conforming with the peripheral situation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Ito’s notification system because (“it is conceivable that an occupant might face toward a side of the vehicle or toward the vehicle rear side during self-driving, in which case it is possible that the occupant might not notice the driving status (operation status) displayed on the display unit. There is therefore room for improvement from the perspective of effectively notifying an occupant regarding a driving status.” (col 1, lines 25-31)), to better inform the vehicle occupant of the driving status.
With respect to claim 5, Funayama in combination with Jurca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. The combination of Funayama and Jurca teaches an autonomous driving system of claim 4. Funayama further teaches:
wherein the path conforming with the peripheral situation of the vehicle includes a correction content of the path of the vehicle and the peripheral situation of the vehicle for which a correction of the vehicle is required; (“The confidence degree calculation unit 16 may notify the driver of, or may display the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d via the HMI 7 according to the driver's request. The confidence degree calculation unit 16 may transmit the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d to the autonomous driving ECU 50, In this case, the autonomous driving ECU 50 can generate or modify a travel plan based on the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d. The autonomous driving ECU 50 may change the target route based on the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d. In addition, the autonomous driving ECU 50 may perform autonomous driving of the host vehicle M such that the confidence degree in estimating the position of the host vehicle at the candidate passing position d rises.” [0081-0082]), where Funayama teaches that a correction content of the path of the vehicle is required.
However, Funayama does not teach performing a notification when the path conforms with the peripheral situation, but Ito teaches (“A second aspect of the present disclosure, in the first aspect, the vehicle notification system may further include a position identification section that is configured to identify a current position of the vehicle, wherein, based on a destination and the current position, notification that the driving status is conforming to a plan is performed at regular intervals, and notification that the driving status is not conforming to the plan is performed if the driving status is no longer conforming to the plan.” (col 1, lines 48-56)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Ito’s notification system because (“it is conceivable that an occupant might face toward a side of the vehicle or toward the vehicle rear side during self-driving, in which case it is possible that the occupant might not notice the driving status (operation status) displayed on the display unit. There is therefore room for improvement from the perspective of effectively notifying an occupant regarding a driving status.” (col 1, lines 25-31)), to better inform the vehicle occupant of the driving status.
With respect to claim 6, Funayama in combination with Jurca, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Funayama and Jurca teaches an autonomous driving system of claim 1. Funayama and Jurca do not teach, but Ito further teaches:
wherein the electronic control unit issues the notification to the occupant of the vehicle at a timing at which it is determined that a correction of the path is required; (“A second aspect of the present disclosure, in the first aspect, the vehicle notification system may further include a position identification section that is configured to identify a current position of the vehicle, wherein, based on a destination and the current position, notification that the driving status is conforming to a plan is performed at regular intervals, and notification that the driving status is not conforming to the plan is performed if the driving status is no longer conforming to the plan. In the vehicle notification system of the second aspect, notification that the driving status is conforming to the plan is performed at regular intervals, the occupant may ascertain the driving status at regular intervals. Moreover, the occupant is notified if the driving status is no longer conforming to the plan, the occupant may speedily perform changes to the travel route or schedule changes.” (col 1, lines 48-63)), where the occupant is notified at a time where it is determined that a correction of the path is required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Funayama’s driving system with Ito’s notification system because (“it is conceivable that an occupant might face toward a side of the vehicle or toward the vehicle rear side during self-driving, in which case it is possible that the occupant might not notice the driving status (operation status) displayed on the display unit. There is therefore room for improvement from the perspective of effectively notifying an occupant regarding a driving status.” (col 1, lines 25-31)), to better inform the vehicle occupant of the driving status.
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 Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights