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 .
The Amendment filed April 21, 206 has been entered. No new matter has been added.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2023/0286537).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nakamura et al. teaches a driving assistance control apparatus comprising a controller (70) configured to: when a planned travel route from a current position of a host vehicle to a destination has been set, determine, based on stored latest map data that is obtained from information center and is updated to include data which specifies a specific region where optimized data for said specific region is available, whether or not there is one or more of said specific regions in an area through which said planned travel route passes (S100 acquires current position, S120 sets a planned travel route, S130 and S200/S300 obtain and updates the route via 60, and Fig 5 shows batch data downloading of map information where available and before the vehicle has reached its destination, and paragraph 0005 infers the optimum route is displayed which is understood to be the optimized data along with the abstract stating a high-precision map); when a host vehicle (1) is located in a normal region other than any of said specific regions (determined via S100, which detects the current position of the host vehicle), perform a first assistance control (via 40) which is a standard driving assistance control based on electronic data indelibly stored in a memory before factory shipment of said host vehicle (paragraphs 0006, 0021, 0084 describe the vehicle having a first map storage 10 that stores initial map information, and the Examiner takes Official notice that this applies to brand new vehicles when they are first created and utilized); and when said host vehicle is located in said specific region, perform, in place of said first assistance control, a second assistance control which is a driving assistance control for said specific region using electronic data that is received from a server external to said host vehicle (paragraphs 0006, 0021, 0084 describe second map storage 61 downloading updated map information via 60 and 100 shown in Fig 1, and Fig 2 shows preliminary downloads at various points in time and position, which are acquired via 20 and calculated via 40 based on “a section included in the route calculated..” of paragraph 0006; see also, the subsequent downloading at various points of time and sections of travel to update the map information as shown in Figs 5 and 7).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nakamura teaches when a planned travel route of said host vehicle is a route passing through said specific region, said controller is configured to complete receiving said electronic data from said server before a time point at which said host vehicle enters said specific region (Fig 2, via S140 and S200); and wherein, said controller is configured to: obtain a first time required to download said optimized data for said specific region, from said server (Fig 5 shows the elapsed time for each section being downloaded); obtain second time from a time point at which said download of the optimized data for said specific region is completed to a time point at which said downloaded optimized data comes to be able to be used after installing said downloaded optimized data (the ensuing elapsed time between downloaded sections in Fig 7); obtain a sum of said first time and said second time as a preparation time length (tb); when a present time has coincided with a time which is said preparation time length (tb) before a time at which said host vehicle is predicted to reach said specific region, start downloading said optimized data for said specific region (the cumulative method shown in Fig 5); and after downloading said optimized data for said specific region is completed, perform installing said downloaded optimized data so that said downloaded optimized data can be utilize before said time point at which said host vehicle enters said specific region (Figs 5 and 7 shows the elapsed time and download progress of each section, Fig 9 shows the batch downloading process in which other sections of the route are downloaded prior to the vehicle entering that region).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nakamura teaches said controller is configured to: store temporarily said electronic data received from said server in a memory; and delete said electronic data stored in said memory to perform said second assistance control from said memory, when said host vehicle has left said specific region where said second assistance control was being performed, said planned travel route includes another specific region, and there is not enough memory capacity to store electronic data for performing a third assistance control for that another specific region (Figs 2 – 7, via partial downloads).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2023/0286537) and in view of Iwase et al. (US 2023/0234575).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nakamura et al. is silent to said controller is configured to: perform a first collision avoidance assistance control as said first assistance control, when an other vehicle is located in a travel direction of said host vehicle and a collision possibility indicating value indicative of a possibility that said other vehicle collides with said host vehicle satisfies a predetermined first condition; and determine that said host vehicle is located in said specific region when said host vehicle is located in a region that includes a road with a shape that causes said other vehicle to come closer to a front face of said host vehicle, and perform a second collision avoidance assistance control as said second assistance control when said collision possibility indicating value satisfies a second condition that is set based on said electronic data received from said server.
However, Iwase et al. teaches a collision avoidance assistance control (Figs 11 – 14), and assigned various levels of risk (Fig 14) in which driver assistance is affected at various position points along a traveled route (Figs 4 – 5, 7 – 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the collision avoidance assistance control of Iwase et al. in the apparatus of Nakamura in order to control the vehicle around obstacles based on acquired environmental data and to securely allow travel of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 5 and later on Page 6 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Nakamura teaches the need to download in batches, sections of the route as the vehicle travels and that Nakamura does not teach reducing the amount of data downloaded. The Examiner disagrees. First, this argument is not shown in the claim language, as the general use of the term “optimized data” is not clearly defined in the Specification, but rather, used to describe electronic information used for map downloading along with the concern for time and volume of data. To reiterate, there is no positive definition that size, volume, and/or time to download is a requirement for the definition of “optimized data.” And even if this was the case, which the Examiner has not agreed to, Nakamura teaches through its batch downloading process shown in Fig 5 in which certain sections of a low effectiveness in high precision data, and therefore, the initial stored map in memory is used (paragraphs 0058 – 0059). This process of only downloading high-precision data when sections have easily transmittable data is considered the be the “optimized data” as currently written in the claims.
On Page 6 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Nakamura does not teach driving assistance control. The Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection because the abstract teaches both driving assistance and automated driving.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights