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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 5-19 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2023-215279 filed on 12/20/2023. The amendment overcomes the 101 rejection on record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miura (US20200361488) in view of Kamakura (US20230154325) and Konishi (US20190202297) and Seo (US20180162385).
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a vehicle that is a first vehicle second vehicle, the vehicle comprising ([0049]-[0061] disclosing an array of vehicles including a first vehicle and second vehicle wherein the second vehicle is ahead of the first vehicle ):
a communication device configured to communicate with the ([0049]-[0061] disclosing vehicle to vehicle communication between the vehicles sharing positions);
a position acquisition device configured to acquire a position of the first vehicle, the position acquisition device comprising a global positioning system ([0027], [0051] disclosing calculating the position of the own vehicle is acquired from a detection device including a GPS);
a locator device configured to determine a position of a preceding vehicle located ahead of the first vehicle in the traveling direction, the locator device comprising an imaging device ([0025] disclosing the traveling vehicle monitoring device that comprises a camera determines the vehicle to vehicle distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle.
[0049]-[0061] disclosing determining the position of the preceding vehicle using the vehicle to vehicle communication); and
a control device comprising one or more processors and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising ([0011]-[0012] disclosing processor and memory):
when an intersection is present ahead of the first vehicle in the traveling direction, determining whether the first vehicle is able to pass through the intersection based on positional information of the preceding vehicle ([0040]-[0060] disclosing determining whether the first vehicle is able to pass based on the information of the preceding vehicle and the space that is remaining after the intersection. See also [0066]-[0069] disclosing the determination if the vehicle can proceed through the intersection based on the information of preceding vehicle); and
executing an autonomous driving control to cause the vehicle to cause the first vehicle to enter the intersection ([0040]-[0060] disclosing autonomously passing the intersection when the vehicle is able to pass).
Miura does not disclose the first vehicle is ahead of the second vehicle; when the first vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection, transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle.
Konishi teaches the first vehicle is ahead of the second vehicle ([0022]-[0025], [0088]-[0095] disclosing a first vehicle ahead of the second vehicle).
, transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle ([0088]-[0095] disclosing transmitting the stop location of a lead vehicle to a following vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Konishi of the transmitting of a stop location to a following vehicle is obvious yielding predictable results in order to avoid a collision with the lead vehicle.
Kamakura teaches transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop).
Miura already teaches when a first vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection [0066]-[0069], thus it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura does not teach estimating a rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle;
Seo teaches estimating a rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle ([0072] disclosing estimating a position of the rear end relative to a rear vehicle after the vehicle stops based on the braking distance, the sensors at the rear end of the vehicle detect the distance, i.e., positional relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Seo of a position/distance estimated based on braking distance of the host vehicle to the transmitted position by the vehicle as taught by Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura yielding predictable results improving the accuracy of the determined positions and avoiding collisions and solving the problem of determining accurate positioning and relative positioning of the vehicles.
Regarding claim 5, Miura teaches a vehicle that is a second vehicle located behind a first vehicle in a traveling direction and configured to travel in an array with the first vehicle ([0049]-[0061] disclosing an array of vehicles including a first vehicle and second vehicle wherein the second vehicle is behind a preceding first vehicle ):, the vehicle comprising:
a position acquisition device configured to acquire a position of the first vehicle, the position acquisition device comprising a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver (([0049]-[0061] disclosing determining the position of the preceding vehicle using the vehicle to vehicle communication));
a communication device configured to communicate with the first vehicle ([0049]-[0061] disclosing determining the position of the preceding vehicle using the vehicle to vehicle communication);
a position acquisition device configured to acquire a position of the second vehicle ([0027], [0051] disclosing calculating the position of the own vehicle is acquired from a detection device including a GPS);and
a control device comprising one or more processors and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors ([0018]-[0019] disclosing the processors and memories),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising: when an intersection is present ahead of the second vehicle in the traveling direction, receiving, from the first vehicle via the communication device, positional information of the first vehicle ([0040]-[0060] disclosing determining whether the second vehicle is able to pass based on the information of the preceding first vehicle and the space that is remaining after the intersection. See also [0066]-[0069] disclosing the determination if the vehicle can proceed through the intersection based on the information of preceding vehicle); and
determining whether the second vehicle is able to pass through the intersection based on the acquired positional information of the first vehicle ([0040]-[0060] disclosing determining whether the second vehicle is able to pass based on the information of the preceding first vehicle and the space that is remaining after the intersection. See also [0066]-[0069] disclosing the determination if the vehicle can proceed through the intersection based on the information of preceding vehicle);
when the second vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection, executing an autonomous driving control to cause the second vehicle to enter the intersection ([0040]-[0060] disclosing autonomously passing the intersection when the vehicle is able to pass).
Konishi teaches the first vehicle is ahead of the second vehicle ([0022]-[0025], [0088]-[0095] disclosing a first vehicle ahead of the second vehicle).
, transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle ([0088]-[0095] disclosing transmitting the stop location of a lead vehicle to a following vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Konishi of the transmitting of a stop location to a following vehicle is obvious yielding predictable results in order to avoid a collision with the lead vehicle.
Kamakura teaches the positional information being transmitted after the first vehicle has determined that the first vehicle is able to pass through the intersection, ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop, i.e., the front vehicle has determined that it passed the intersection).
Miura already teaches when a first vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection [0066]-[0069], thus it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura does not teach the positional information of the first vehicle comprising an estimated rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle.
Seo teaches the positional information of the first vehicle comprising an estimated rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle ([0072] disclosing estimating a position in relation to another vehicle after the vehicle stops based on the braking distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Seo of a position/distance estimated based on braking distance of the host vehicle to the transmitted position by the vehicle as taught by Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura yielding predictable results improving the accuracy of the determined positions and avoiding collisions and solving the problem of determining accurate positioning and relative positioning of the vehicles.
Regarding claim 7, Miura teaches a vehicle that is a first vehicle ([0049]-[0061] disclosing an array of vehicles including a first vehicle and second vehicle wherein the second vehicle is ahead of the first vehicle, [0018]-[0019] disclosing processors and memories ):
a communication device configured to communicate with the ([0049]-[0061] disclosing vehicle to vehicle communication between the vehicles sharing positions);
a position acquisition device configured to acquire a position of the first vehicle ([0027], [0051] disclosing calculating the position of the own vehicle is acquired from a detection device);
a locator device configured to determine a position of a preceding vehicle located ahead of the first vehicle in the traveling direction ([0049]-[0061] disclosing determining the position of the preceding vehicle using the vehicle to vehicle communication); and
a control device comprising one or more processors and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising ([0011]-[0012] disclosing processor and memory):
when an intersection is present ahead of the first vehicle in the traveling direction, determining whether the first vehicle is able to pass through the intersection based on positional information of the preceding vehicle ([0040]-[0060] disclosing determining whether the first vehicle is able to pass based on the information of the preceding vehicle and the space that is remaining after the intersection. See also [0066]-[0069] disclosing the determination if the vehicle can proceed through the intersection based on the information of preceding vehicle); and
Miura does not disclose the first vehicle is ahead of the second vehicle; when the first vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection, transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle.
Konishi teaches the first vehicle is ahead of the second vehicle ([0022]-[0025], [0088]-[0095] disclosing a first vehicle ahead of the second vehicle).
, transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle ([0088]-[0095] disclosing transmitting the stop location of a lead vehicle to a following vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Konishi of the transmitting of a stop location to a following vehicle is obvious yielding predictable results in order to avoid a collision with the lead vehicle.
Kamakura teaches transmitting positional information of the first vehicle at the intersection to the second vehicle ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop).
Wherein the second vehicle comprises one or more processor and memory ([0024]-[0042] disclosing the decision is made by the second vehicle via computer and memory).
Miura already teaches when a first vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection [0066]-[0069], thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura does not teach estimating a rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle;
Seo teaches estimating a rear end position of the first vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the first vehicle ([0072] disclosing estimating a position of the rear end relative to a rear vehicle after the vehicle stops based on the braking distance, the sensors at the rear end of the vehicle detect the distance, i.e., positional relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Seo of a position/distance estimated based on braking distance of the host vehicle to the transmitted position by the vehicle as taught by Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura yielding predictable results improving the accuracy of the determined positions and avoiding collisions and solving the problem of determining accurate positioning and relative positioning of the vehicles.
Regarding claim 8, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo further teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the one or more processors of the second vehicle are configured to execute a process comprising:
Specifically, Kamakura teaches Causing a communication device to communicate the first vehicle ([0024]-[0048] disclosing causing the communication device to request position information of first vehicle via second vehicle).
Causing a position acquisition device to acquire a position of the second vehicle ([0029] disclosing determining the own vehicle position).
Acquiring positional information of the first vehicle when the first vehicle is present ahead of the second vehicle in the travelling direction (as shown in figure 3 and [0024]-[0048] disclosing acquiring the positional information of the vehicles including the vehicle travelling ahead in the travelling direction).
Determining whether the second vehicle is able to pass through the intersection is based on the acquired positional information of the first vehicle ([0024]-[0048] disclosing the determination based on the position of the preceding vehicle that is across the intersection whether the vehicle can cross the intersection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Regarding claim 9, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein when the first vehicle is determined to not be able to pass through the intersection, the one or more processors are configured to execute stop control to cause the first vehicle to automatically stop behind a stop line at the intersection (Miura [0040]-[0060] disclosing to stop the vehicle at the stop line when there is no advancement space to proceed through the intersection).
Regarding claim 10, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein when the second vehicle is determined to not be able to pass through the intersection, the one or more processors are configured to execute stop control to cause the first vehicle to automatically stop behind a stop line at the intersection (Miura [0040]-[0060] disclosing to stop the vehicle at the stop line when there is no advancement space to proceed through the intersection).
Regarding claim 11, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein when the first vehicle is determined to not be able to pass through the intersection, the one or more processors are configured to execute stop control to cause the first vehicle to automatically stop behind a stop line at the intersection (Miura [0040]-[0060] disclosing to stop the vehicle at the stop line when there is no advancement space to proceed through the intersection).
Regarding claim 14, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo taches wherein the rear end position of the first vehicle is estimated when the first vehicle stops at a predetermined distance from a rear end of the preceding vehicle (Konishi [0021]-[0095] disclosing the stop of a first vehicle which transmits its stop position to a rear vehicle is based on the first vehicle stopping behind a stopped preceding vehicle stop position, see figure 4b. the combination of Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the position of the rear end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Konishi of the transmission of the position with the teaching of transmitting the rear end position as taught by Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo yielding predictable results in order to alert the rear vehicle when the front vehicle is forced to stop due to another vehicle stopping in front of it.
Konishi shows all elements per claimed invention as explained in the paragraph above. However it is silent as to the specifics of the range. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Konishi with such range for safety purposes,since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein when the second vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection, the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising: estimating a rear end position of the second vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the second vehicle; and transmitting positional information of the estimated rear end position of the second vehicle to a third vehicle located behind the second vehicle in the traveling direction (Miura teaches detecting position of front vehicles, Konishi teaches transmitting a stop position to a rear vehicle, Kamakura [0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop, Seo [0072] disclosing estimating a position of the rear end relative to a rear vehicle after the vehicle stops based on the braking distance, the sensors at the rear end of the vehicle detect the distance, i.e., positional relationship, the teaching can be applied to a first, second or third vehicle yielding predictable results solving a problem of passing through intersections and vehicle accurate positioning and collision avoidance).
The combination of Kamakura, Miura, Konishi and Seo is obvious yielding predictable results in order to alert vehicles about a position of a stopped vehicle improving the driving safety. It is obvious to try the method on other vehicles with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 19, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 8, wherein when the second vehicle is determined to be able to pass through the intersection, the one or more processors of the second vehicle are configured to execute a process comprising: estimating a rear end position of the second vehicle based on a braking distance during braking of the second vehicle; and transmitting positional information of the estimated rear end position of the second vehicle to a third vehicle located behind the second vehicle in the traveling direction (Miura teaches detecting position of front vehicles, Konishi teaches transmitting a stop position to a rear vehicle, Kamakura [0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop, Seo [0072] disclosing estimating a position of the rear end relative to a rear vehicle after the vehicle stops based on the braking distance, the sensors at the rear end of the vehicle detect the distance, i.e., positional relationship, the teaching can be applied to a first, second or third vehicle yielding predictable results solving a problem of passing through intersections and vehicle accurate positioning and collision avoidance).
The combination of Kamakura, Miura, Konishi and Seo is obvious yielding predictable results in order to alert vehicles about a position of a stopped vehicle improving the driving safety. It is obvious to try the method on other vehicles with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 14, see above rejection.
Claims 2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miura (US20200361488) in view of Kamakura (US20230154325) and Konishi (US20190202297) and Seo (US20180162385) and Li (US20230306546).
Regarding claim 2, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising:
acquiring time information on a time of change in a color of a traffic light at the intersection (Miura at least [0039], [0066]-[0069] disclosing the time of change of a traffic light);
acquiring speed information on a vehicle speed and an acceleration of the first vehicle (Miura [0018]-[0019] disclosing acceleration and speed of the first vehicle);
determining, based on the time information, whether the first vehicle is able to enter to the intersection before the color of the traffic light changes to a color for restriction of movement of the vehicle (Miura [0040]-[0060], [0066]-[0069] disclosing based on the time information to determine if the vehicle will be able to enter the intersection before the light changes to red);
when the first vehicle is able to enter to the intersection before the color of the traffic light changes to the color for restriction of movement of the vehicle and the stop space is present, determining that the first vehicle is able to pass through the intersection, and causing the first vehicle to enter the intersection (Miura [0040]-[0060] and [0066]-[0069] disclosing when the vehicle can enter the intersection based on the available stop space and the traffic light color change causing the vehicle to enter to the stop place).
Kamakura further teaches determining, based on the positional information of the preceding vehicle, whether a stop space for the first vehicle is present ahead of the intersection through which the first vehicle is expected to pass ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi yielding predictable results in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura does not teach the determining the vehicle able to enter the intersection based on the speed before the light color change.
Li teaches the determining the vehicle able to enter the intersection based on the speed before the light color change ([0046] disclosing the determination that a vehicle can pass a light during a period of green, i.e, before it changes is based on speed. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Li to incorporate the speed based passing of a green light to the intersection passing of Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura is obvious yielding predictable results in order to safely pass an intersection during a green light period based on speed thus improving safety. The combination of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi is obvious in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Regarding claim 6, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising:
acquiring time information on a time of change in a color of a traffic light at the intersection (Miura at least [0039], [0066]-[0069] disclosing the time of change of a traffic light);
acquiring speed information on a vehicle speed and an acceleration of the first vehicle (Miura [0018]-[0019] disclosing acceleration and speed of the first vehicle);
determining, based on the time information, whether the second vehicle is able to enter to the intersection before the color of the traffic light changes to a color for restriction of movement of the vehicle (Miura [0040]-[0060], [0066]-[0069] disclosing based on the time information to determine if the vehicle will be able to enter the intersection before the light changes to red);
when the second vehicle is able to enter to the intersection before the color of the traffic light changes to the color for restriction of movement of the vehicle and the stop space is present, determining that the second vehicle is able to pass through the intersection, and causing the first vehicle to enter the intersection ([0040]-[0060] and [0066]-[0069] disclosing when the vehicle can enter the intersection based on the available stop space and the traffic light color change causing the vehicle to enter to the stop place).
when the second vehicle is able to enter to the intersection before the color of the traffic light changes to the color for restriction of movement of the vehicle and the stop space is present, determining that the first vehicle is able to pass through the intersection, and causing the second vehicle to enter the intersection ([0040]-[0060] and [0066]-[0069] disclosing when the vehicle can enter the intersection based on the available stop space and the traffic light color change causing the vehicle to enter to the stop place).
Kamakura teaches determining, based on the positional information of the first vehicle, whether a stop space for the second vehicle is present ahead of the intersection through which the second vehicle is expected to pass ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kamakura with the transmission of the position to a rearward vehicle as taught by Miura in view of Konishi yielding predictable results in order to teach transmission of information from a preceding vehicle that crossed the intersection and stopped to a following vehicle to allow the following vehicle to stop and avoid blocking an intersection or causing an accident.
Li teaches the determining the vehicle able to enter the intersection based on the speed before the light color change ([0046] disclosing the determination that a vehicle can pass a light during a period of green, i.e, before it changes is based on speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Li to incorporate the speed based passing of a green light to the intersection passing of Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura is obvious yielding predictable results in order to safely pass an intersection during a green light period based on speed thus improving safety ([0024]-[0042] disclosing receiving the position of a front vehicle that has passed the intersection to determine based on the other vehicle position if there is space to cross the intersection and stop).
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Miura (US20200361488) in view of Kamakura (US20230154325) and Konishi (US20190202297) and Seo (US20180162385) and Kumabe (US20180184353).
Regarding claim 12, Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura and Seo teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the estimating of the rear end position of the first vehicle is based on the braking distance, a first vehicle speed, (Seo [0072] disclosing the estimation of the rear position is based on the braking distance of the vehicle. [0070]-[0076] disclosing the speed of the vehicle is taken when estimating the remaining distance between the rear end and the object, i.e., indicative of the positional of the rear end to the object is based on the distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Seo of a position/distance estimated based on braking distance of the host vehicle to the transmitted position by the vehicle as taught by Miura as modified by Konishi and Kamakura yielding predictable results improving the accuracy of the determined positions and avoiding collisions and solving the problem of determining accurate positioning and relative positioning of the vehicles.
Kumabe teaches an acceleration of the vehicle ([0063] disclosing the estimating of a position based on acceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kumabe of determining an estimated position based on the acceleration yielding predictable results solving the same problem of determining vehicle position, improving accuracy and for verification and redundancy.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejection on record, the incorporation of an autonomous vehicle control overcomes the rejection on record.
102/103 rejection: with respect to applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 incorporating the subject matter from cancelled claims 3 and 4, that Macneille and Cho does not teach the estimated rear end position of the vehicle, alternatively as cited in the rejection of claim 4, and in the conclusion section in the non final rejection, Seo teaches the determination of the rear end position based on rear end sensors detecting a distance from another vehicle, thus Seo discloses a teaching of determining a positional relationship of the rear of the vehicle based on braking distance of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and or substitute the teaching of Seo with the position as taught by Miura in view of Konishi and Kamakura yielding predictable results solving the problem of determining vehicle positioning with accuracy and improving the collision avoidance of the vehicle. There is no new ground of rejection when the basic thrust of the rejection remains the same such that an appellant has been given a fair opportunity to react to the rejection. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA 1976). Where the statutory basis for the rejection remains the same, and the evidence relied upon in support of the rejection remains the same, a change in the discussion of, or rationale in support of, the rejection does not necessarily constitute a new ground of rejection. Id. at 1303, 190 USPQ at 427 (reliance upon fewer references in affirming a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not constitute a new ground of rejection).
If the examiner’s answer removes one or more references from the statement of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, and relies on the same teachings of the remaining references to support the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, then the rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection. For example, in In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302, 190 USPQ 425, 427 (CCPA 1976), the examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 over four references. The Board affirmed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, but limited its discussion to three of the references applied by the examiner. Id. The Board relied upon the references for the same teachings as did the examiner. The court held that this did not constitute a new ground of rejection. Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303, 190 USPQ at 427 ( "Having compared the rationale of the rejection advanced by the examiner and the board on this record, we are convinced that the basic thrust of the rejection at the examiner and board level was the same." ). See also In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 495–96, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961) (Examiner rejected claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 based upon "Whitney in view of Harth;" Board did not enter new ground of rejection by relying only on Whitney).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 16 would be allowable. The determining whether a length between the intersection and a rear end position of the preceding vehicle is equal to or larger than the overall length of the vehicle in determining a stop space present for the vehicle is not taught by any of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20170168503 disclosing the avoidance of a rear end collision by not allowing the front vehicle to braking distance less than the braking distance of the rear vehicle to avoid rear end collision.
US20210303001 disclosing the continuation of sending position after the light turns green to continue platooning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights