CTFR 18/906,661 CTFR 96890 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite based on the use or relative terminology. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horita (US 2019/0333386) in view of Funabashi (US 2023/0234574) . Priority The priority date of this application is 10/24/2023. Response to Arguments The applicant has argued that amendments made to the claims overcome the currently rendered rejections. This argument is moot, however as a new grounds of rejection has been identified in a renewed search necessitated by said amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-03 The term “normal value” in Claims 9, and 13-14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “normal value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horita (US 2019/0333386) in view of Funabashi (US 2023/0234574).These references are analogous as they both relate to autonomous control of vehicles based on future trajectories of other vehicles (See [Abstract] of both references) . As per Claim 1: Horita discloses the following limitations: “A vehicle control device comprising: a sensor that acquires information regarding an own vehicle and information regarding objects located around the own vehicle” Horita Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] discloses sensors that sense the environment surrounding the vehicle. “and a processor that is capable of executing a risk reduction process to control the own vehicle so that the risk of contact between the own vehicle and another vehicle is reduced based on the information acquired from the sensor, wherein the processor is configured to restrict the execution of the risk reduction process under specific circumstances in which, based on the information acquired from the sensor,..., the other vehicle is traveling in a second lane adjacent to a first lane that is the lane of the own vehicle, an obstacle located in front of the other vehicle in the second lane is detected, and the lateral velocity of the other vehicle, which is moving towards the first lane as it approaches the obstacle, from the second lane towards the first lane is decreasing.” Horita Paragraph [0060] discloses predicting the travel of other vehicles and controlling the vehicle in accordance. Specifically, the case of a vehicle in an oncoming lane avoiding an obstacle is disclosed (See Figures 4 and 10-12). Horita does not disclose the following limitations that Funabashi teaches: “...at a time that the sensor information is acquired…” Funabashi Figure 4 and Paragraph [0102] teaches making determinations on whether a vehicle is entering a lane of an instant vehicle based on lateral velocity calculations based on sensor data at a time the sensor data is taken. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Horita with the elements taught by Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by relying on real-time sensor data. With regards to Claim 2, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the processor, as the risk reduction process, executes: a process to acquire a predicted time until contact between the own vehicle and the other vehicle based on the information acquired from the sensor; and a process to control the own vehicle so that a driving operation to brake the own vehicle is assisted when the predicted time is below a threshold value.” Horita Paragraph [0027] and Paragraphs [0044]-[0049] discloses identifying the time of presence range of predicted vehicles in the environment. With regards to Claim 3, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein the processor assigns a first value to the threshold value under circumstances excluding the specific circumstances, and assigns a second value, smaller than the first value, to the threshold value under the specific circumstances.” Horita Paragraphs [0044]-[0049] discloses identifying time-of presence associated with specific circumstances of the environment. As per Claim 4: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale: As per Claim 5: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale: With regards to Claim 6, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations: “acquire a predicted time until contact between the own vehicle and the other vehicle based on the information acquired from the sensor; and execute a braking process when the predicted time until contact is below a threshold value.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 7, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “the threshold value is assigned based on the information acquired from the sensor.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches identifying a time to collision based on sensor data, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a threshold would be set with respect to sensor data (See also Paragraph [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 8, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the threshold value is assigned based on the lateral velocity of the other vehicle.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches variably setting time thresholds based on overlap which in turn would be based on lateral velocity of a target vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 9, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the threshold value is assigned to be a normal value when the lateral velocity of the other vehicle is not decreasing, and the threshold value is assigned be less than the normal value when the lateral velocity of the other vehicle is decreasing.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches variably setting time thresholds based on overlap which in turn would be based on lateral velocity of a target vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 10, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the processor is configured to continuously assign the threshold value during each processing time based on the information acquired from the sensor.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches variably setting time thresholds based on overlap which in turn would be based on lateral velocity of a target vehicle. Continuous updating would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 11, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the processor is configured to continuously assign the threshold value during each processing time based on the lateral velocity of the other vehicle.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches variably setting time thresholds based on overlap which in turn would be based on lateral velocity of a target vehicle. Continuous updating would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 12, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “ wherein the processor is configured to continuously monitor the lateral velocity of the other vehicle, and assign the threshold value during each processing time based on the lateral velocity of the other vehicle.” Funabashi Paragraph [0077] teaches variably setting time thresholds based on overlap which in turn would be based on lateral velocity of a target vehicle. Continuous updating would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 13, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the threshold value is assigned to be a normal value when the obstacle is not detected in front of the other vehicle.” Horita Paragraph [0060] teaches predicting movement of other vehicles based on the presence of an obstacle in front of said vehicles. As thresholds are set based on environmental data it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. With regards to Claim 14, Horita in view of Funabashi teaches all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the threshold value is assigned to be less than a normal value when the obstacle is detected in front of the other vehicle and when the lateral velocity of the other vehicle is decreasing.” Horita Paragraph [0060] teaches predicting movement of other vehicles based on the presence of an obstacle in front of said vehicles. As thresholds are set based on environmental data it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system taught by Horita in view of Funabashi with the predicted trajectories of Funabashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by applying autonomous actions to real-world events. Related References Akiyama (US 9,105,190) Related to collision avoidance technology. Izumi (US 2023/0166730) Related to vehicle control including collision avoidance. Ito (US 2019/0001937) Related to collision avoidance technology. Moritomi (US 2018/0268696) Related to collision avoidance device. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/906,661 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights