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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 26, 2026 amends claims 1-5. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 26, 2026 regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are unpersuasive and/or moot.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Kamiya at [0051] that “the ‘achieving of a required deceleration’ is merely with reference to the time it takes for the own vehicle to reach the required deceleration as related to the second determination time b, which is merely used for determining whether or not to apply brake assistance in the first place. Examiner maintains that achieving a required deceleration corresponds to finishing the deceleration control as recited in claim 1. Examiner notes that achieving a required deceleration includes at least finishing the deceleration control. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.
Applicant has characterized Kamiya at [0050-0053] in attempt to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 by alleging that Kamiya describes “determining whether or not to perform braking assistance based on whether or not TTC<a and ECT< b, and thus the conditions associated with TTC and ECT are conditions for starting braking assistance, not for finishing braking assistance. Examiner notes that the time to collision (TTC) being less than a first value and the expected time to crossing (ECT) being less than a second value corresponds to an avoidance condition. Thus, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization.
Amended independent claim 1, which necessitates a new ground of rejection, is taught by Kamiya in combination with newly cited reference, Jang (US 20130018572), as shown in the rejections that follow. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the Applicant has not entirely addressed the indefiniteness issues that were mentioned in the last Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Furthermore, the claims fail to interrelate essential elements of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an avoidance condition, which is a condition of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that is determined when the crossing target is at a position before reaching the predicted travel region of the own vehicle, the own vehicle is moving and the crossing target is moving, and [sic] which is satisfied when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time and a crossing target reaching predicted time,”. It is unclear what is meant by ”when the crossing target is at a position before reaching the predicted travel region of the own vehicle.” In particular, it is unclear what is meant by a location that corresponds to “a position before crossing the predicted travel region of the own vehicle” because “a position before” can be a position located anywhere prior to crossing the predicted travel region. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. In addition, the words “is at a position before” comprises relative and/or subjective term(s) which is/are not defined by the claim. Nor does the specification provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “predetermined control finish condition” or the” avoidance condition” or some other condition is being satisfied per “which is satisfied” as recited in the claim. Therefore, for at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Furthermore, the recitation of an avoidance condition, which is a condition of satisfaction or dissatisfaction is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by an avoidance condition being both satisfied and dissatisfied. Examiner notes that a condition cannot be both satisfied and dissatisfied at the same time. Such a condition is not a valid condition. Therefore, for at least this reason, claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Each of claims 2-8 depend on claim 1. Since claims 2-8 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph for the same reasons as stated above.
For the sake of an examination on the merits, the Examiner will strike-out the above-identified claim language. Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added. The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the above claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
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 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2021/0114591) in view of Jang (US 2013/0018572).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya teaches a vehicle control device, comprising: a braking device configured to brake an own vehicle; (see Kamiya at [0053] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses that the driving assistance device 31 actuates the braking devices 502 to decelerate the own vehicle, such that the own vehicle comes to rest upon the deceleration required to stop the own vehicle being achieved.)
and a control unit configured to start deceleration control of controlling the braking device such that the own vehicle decelerates when the control unit determines that a probability of collision between the own vehicle and a crossing target that is a target predicted to cross a predicted travel region of the own vehicle is high, and to finish the deceleration control based on a predetermined control finish condition being satisfied during the execution of the deceleration control, (see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time to collision (TTC) using the acquired traveling states of the own vehicle and the other vehicle (at step S110). Examiner maps the CPU to the control unit. Further, see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the time to collision TTC (sec) is a time to collision with another vehicle under assumption that the own vehicle and the other vehicle continue their respective traveling states at the time of calculation and that typically, the TTC is used as a deterministic indicator for collision to determine whether to begin braking assistance for collision avoidance. Kamiya at [0044] further discloses that an intersection of paths of travel of the own vehicle and the oncoming other vehicle is calculated as a collision point K1, which is calculated according to the following equation: TTC=Dc/V0, and that here, TTC is a time to collision that is a time it takes for the own vehicle to reach the collision point K1, Dc is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the collision point K1, and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Further, see Kamiya at [0051] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time it takes for the own vehicle to stop using a current speed of the own vehicle, a delay due to jerk of the braking device 502, and a reaction delay of the driver, that is, a time it takes to achieve a required deceleration needed to stop the own vehicle; also see Kamiya at [0053] which discloses that if determining that the condition that TTC<α and ECT<β is met (“Yes” branch of step S140), the CPU 101 determines to perform braking assistance (at step S150) and transmits a control signal to direct the driving assistance device 31 to perform braking and then, the processing routine ends.)
Kamiya does not appear to expressly disclose [wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an avoidance condition which is a condition of satisfaction or dissatisfaction that is determined when the crossing target is at a position before reaching the predicted travel region of the own vehicle, the own vehicle is moving, and the crossing target is moving, and which is satisfied] when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time and a crossing target reaching predicted time, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time for the own vehicle to pass through an intersecting region at which the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target are predicted to intersect, and wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region which, in a related art, Jang teaches (see at least Jang at the Abstract which discloses that a collision prediction unit predicts the possibility of collision of a target vehicle in the zone in which the target vehicle is located, based on vehicle information transmitted from the target vehicle, and calculates an estimated time of collision; see Jang at [0013] which discloses a monitoring unit for tracking vehicles located within a predetermined service radius of an intersection; a collision zone information management unit for classifying a region within the service radius into a plurality of zones depending on a set reference based on the result from the monitoring unit, and managing information about collision zones corresponding to the plurality of classified zones. Examiner maps the zone of the predetermined service radius in which the target vehicle is located to the predetermined condition. Further, see Jang at [0013] which discloses a collision prediction unit for predicting the possibility of colliding of a target vehicle in the zone in which the target vehicle is located, based on vehicle information transmitted from the target vehicle located within the service radius, and calculating an estimated time of collision corresponding to the predicted result; see Jang at [0016] which further discloses that the collision prediction unit may be configured to estimate the traveled positions of the target vehicle that are traveling using a current speed and a user set time among vehicle information and calculate a distance between a vehicle ahead and a vehicle behind in each direction of the intersection depending on the difference in positions of vehicles so as to calculate the estimated time of collision taken from the traveled position to the central zone of the intersection. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya to include when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time and a crossing target reaching predicted time, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time for the own vehicle to pass through an intersecting region at which the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target are predicted to intersect, and wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region, as taught by Jang.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide an apparatus and method for controlling traffic at an autonomous intersection without using traffic lamps or traffic signs, as suggested by Jang at [0012].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the avoidance condition is satisfied when the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time (see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the time to collision TTC (sec) is a time to collision with another vehicle under assumption that the own vehicle and the other vehicle continue their respective traveling states at the time of calculation; see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that in an alternative embodiment, taking into account a time it takes for each of the other vehicles M1, M2 to reach the collision point K1 may be calculated as an other-vehicle's arrival time, and the braking assistance may be performed if a difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time is equal to or less than a predetermined reference value. Furthermore, Kamiya at [0067] discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0. Examiner maps time TTC of the own vehicle to the own vehicle passage predicted time. Examiner maps other-vehicle’s arrival time to the crossing target reaching predicted time.)
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time for the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed, and wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target maintains a current speed (see at least Jang at the Abstract, [0013], and [0016]; see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time to collision (TTC) using the acquired traveling states of the own vehicle and the other vehicle (at step S110), and that in the present embodiment where either of the own vehicle and an oncoming other vehicle makes a turn, an intersection of paths of travel of the own vehicle and the oncoming other vehicle is calculated as a collision point K1, which is calculated according to the following equation: TTC=Dc/V0, in which, TTC is a time to collision that is a time it takes for the own vehicle to reach the collision point K1, Dc is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the collision point K1, and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Examiner notes that V0 corresponds to a current speed of the own vehicle. Examiner notes that the equation provided applies for both the own vehicle and an oncoming vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an own vehicle stop condition that is satisfied when the own vehicle is stopped (see Kamiya at [0047] which discloses that the expected time to crossing ECT is a time available to stop the own vehicle without the own vehicle entering the path of travel of the other vehicle and that the expected time to crossing ECT can be used as a deterministic indicator for crossing for determining whether to begin braking assistance in order to stop the own vehicle prior to the own vehicle entering the path of travel of the other vehicle. Examiner notes that using the expected time to crossing (ECT) as a deterministic indicator to determining whether to begin braking assistance corresponds to wherein the predetermined control finish condition that includes an own vehicle stop condition that is satisfied when the own vehicle is stopped.)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes a crossing target passage condition that is satisfied when the crossing target has passed through the intersecting region (see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0.)
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes a crossing target stop condition that is satisfied when the crossing target stops before reaching the intersecting region (see Kamiya at [0018] which discloses a driving assistance control apparatus for a vehicle; see Kamiya at [0019] which discloses that the driving assistance control apparatus for the vehicle according to the first aspect can inhibit or prevent a collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle when the vehicle is traveling along a path of travel crossing a path of travel of the other vehicle; see Kamiya at [0056] in conjunction with Fig. 6 which discloses that if the other vehicle M1 does not stop in a situation illustrated in FIG. 6, the other vehicle M1 will collide with the own vehicle M0. Examiner notes that Kamiya at Fig. 6 depicts an accident condition when the crossing target does not stop. On the other hand, a non-accident condition would hold when the crossing target stops before reaching the intersecting region. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification. For example, the specification at [0082] states that when the crossing target passage condition is not satisfied, the vehicle control ECU 10 (of the own vehicle) then determines whether or not a crossing target stop condition is satisfied and that the crossing target 200 stops before reaching the intersecting region CA, and is not satisfied otherwise.)
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2021/0114591) in view of Jang (US 2013/0018572) and further in view of Jo (US 2023/0339461).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed, [wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed,] (see Kamiya at [0048 - 0049] which discloses that the expected time to crossing ECT is calculated according to the following equation, ECT=Dx/V0, and that Dx is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the expected crossing point K2 and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Examiner maps expected time to crossing to the predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed. Examiner notes that the V0 maps to the current speed of the own vehicle.
and wherein the avoidance condition is a condition satisfied when the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time (see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0 and that this can suppress the performance frequency of braking assistance and can further mitigate the driver's feeling of discomfort. Examiner notes that a large difference between the TTC of the own vehicle and the other vehicle’s arrival time corresponds to a case where the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time.)
The modified Kamiya does not expressly disclose wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed, which in a related art, Jo teaches (see Jo at [0072] which discloses that the controller 60 determines positions of a host vehicle and a crossing vehicle and determines whether the crossing vehicle yields when approaching the predicted collision position by comparing a braking strategy of an intelligent driver model (IDM), which is an intelligent driver model, with an estimated acceleration value of the crossing vehicle, changes the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields and then estimates a minimum arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates and then relatively slowly decelerates for the changed response time and a maximum arrival time when the crossing vehicle travels at a constant speed for the response time and then relatively suddenly decelerates; see Jo at [0100] which discloses a response time ρ of the driver of the crossing vehicle is changed depending on the determination of whether the driver of the crossing vehicle yields, and the arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates or travels at a constant speed for the changed response time is calculated. Examiner maps crossing vehicle to the crossing target. Examiner notes that the intelligent driver model estimates an acceleration value of the crossing vehicle. Examiner notes that an estimate of an acceleration value corresponds to the crossing target executing a predetermined acceleration. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya to include wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed, as taught by Jo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow the controller to change the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields, as suggested by Jo at [0098].
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time for the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from the current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes acceleration at a predetermined acceleration and a predetermined acceleration gradient from the current speed (see Jo at [0072] which discloses that the controller 60 determines positions of a host vehicle and a crossing vehicle and determines whether the crossing vehicle yields when approaching the predicted collision position by comparing a braking strategy of an intelligent driver model (IDM), which is an intelligent driver model, with an estimated acceleration value of the crossing vehicle, changes the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields and then estimates a minimum arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates and then relatively slowly decelerates for the changed response time and a maximum arrival time when the crossing vehicle travels at a constant speed for the response time and then relatively suddenly decelerates. Examiner notes that the crossing target accelerating and then slowing decelerating when traveling at a constant speed creates a predetermined acceleration gradient at the current speed.)
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights