DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 13th, 2026. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to the Applicant’s amendments Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous claim interpretation; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections; withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections; and maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 13th, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 as set forth on pages 28-29 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Yusuke fails to teach or suggest a case where the blinkers of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle indicate that one of the two is to turn at an intersection such that both vehicle will end up traveling in the same lane after the vehicles pass through the intersection. Applicant asserts that Yusuke fails to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant asserts that the rejection of claim 1 as amended be withdrawn. Also, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 12 and 13 as amended be withdrawn for reasons similar in scope to those set forth above with respect to claim 1 as amended. Applicant further requests that the rejection of claims 2 and 8 be withdrawn at least for the reason that claims 2 and 8 depend from claim 1 as amended”.
As to point (a), examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner draws attention to paragraph [0022] of Yusuke which states; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and if it is predicted that the directions indicated by both direction indication states are for changing lanes to the same lane and the inter-vehicle distance between the two vehicles will be less than a predetermined value, it determines that it is not safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and commands the warning unit 7 to provide assistance in issuing a warning to that effect.” While said paragraph does not explicitly state the situation occurring at an intersection, the intersection situation described is merely a lane change situation where the lane changes cause vehicles to enter a same lane, and therefore Yusuke’s paragraph [0022] would apply to an intersection and therefore teaches the limitation. In addition, at paragraph [0020] of Yusuke it specifically discusses the vehicle surrounding situations unit acquiring direction indication states at intersections. Therefore, Examiner is maintaining the corresponding rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 3-7, as set forth on pages 29-30 of applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Yusuke fails to teach or suggest at least the above element of claim 1 as amended as asserted above. In addition, as set forth in Deng (as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B), in a case where the predicted traveling directions of the host vehicle and another vehicle overlap but do not intersect, the risk of collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low because the example paths 210h, 210a do not cross. In such case, an extensive threat analysis is not performed on the target 200. This result is contrary to the approach set forth in claim 1 as amended. In view of the foregoing, Applicant asserts that the combination of Yusuke and Deng fails to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, applicant requests that the rejection of claims 3-7 be withdrawn at least for the reason that claims 3-7 depend indirectly from claim 1 as amended”.
As to point (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Yusuke as teaching the newly amended limitation as described in point (a) above. Additionally, examiner would like to point out that Deng only considers the accident possibility as low in the situation described when it is determined that the target will move into the roadway lane before the host vehicle 101, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if it was determined for the vehicles to move into the same roadway at the same time the possibility of collision would be high. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejection.
Regarding the arguments provided for claim 9 as set forth on page 31 of applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Yusuke fails to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 as amended for the reasons set forth above. In addition, Applicant asserts that Koga fails to teach the elements of claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claim 9 be withdrawn at least for the reason that claim 9 depends from claim 1 as amended”.
As to point (c), see point (a).
Regarding the arguments provided for claims 10 and 11 as set forth on page 31 of applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues “Applicant notes that claims 10 and 11 depend indirectly from claim 1 as amended. Applicant asserts that the combination of Yusuke in view of Deng fails to teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 as amended for the reasons set forth above. In addition, Applicant asserts that Miyamoto fails to teach the elements of claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of claims 10 and 11 be withdrawn at least for the reason that claims 10 and 11 depend indirectly from claim 1 as amended”.
As to point (d), see points (a) and (b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by JP2008168827A (hereinafter, “Yusuke”).
Regarding claim 1 Yusuke discloses a driving assistance device (see at least [0001]; “the present invention relates to a lane change assist device that assists a vehicle in changing lanes”) comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see at least [0023]; “a ROM that stores a program that realizes each of the abovementioned functions, a CPU that processes the program, a RAM that is the working area for the program, and interfaces with each unit”) to:
acquire peripheral vehicle information indicating a peripheral vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
predict a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a self-vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
notify an occupant of the self-vehicle based on the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle is predicted based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision), and
in a case where the blinker of the self-vehicle and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicate that at least one of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle turns at an intersection such that the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle travel the same lane after the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle pass through the intersection, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0020]; “the surrounding information management unit 5 determines whether the direction indication state obtained from the turn indicator 1b is a direction indication for turning right or left at a branch point such as an intersection, or a direction indication for changing lanes.” and [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and if it is predicted that the directions indicated by both direction indication states are for changing lanes to the same lane and the inter-vehicle distance between the two vehicles will be less than a predetermined value, it determines that it is not safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and commands the warning unit 7 to provide assistance in issuing a warning to that effect,” if at any point, including an intersection, it is determined two vehicles are entering the same lane a risk of collision can be determined and alerted to the users of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 2 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yusuke discloses wherein a first side is one of a right side and a left side which is a side of a road on which passage is mandatory in a region where the self-vehicle is located, and a second side is a side opposite to the first side (see at least Fig. 3 and Fig. 4), and
the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision) is predicted based on at least one of
the peripheral vehicle being on the first side or the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” the distance between the vehicles would also indicate in which direction the peripheral vehicle is located),
the blinker of the self-vehicle indicating the first side or the second side (see at least [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself,”), and
the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicating the first side or the second side of the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself”).
Regarding claim 8 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Yusuke discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to notify the occupant of the self-vehicle based on the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle at a time point when the blinker of the self-vehicle or the peripheral vehicle changes an indication of a direction (see at least [0025-0027]; “This operation flow starts when the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 detects a change in the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b from a no indication state to a right direction indication state or a left direction indication state (step 1)… Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7). When the vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6 predicts that the situation will require the driver to be alerted, it transmits alert information according to the prediction result to the alert unit 7 (step 8).”).
Regarding claim 12 Yusuke discloses a driving assistance method (see at least [0001]; “the present invention relates to a lane change assist device that assists a vehicle in changing lanes”) comprising:
acquiring peripheral vehicle information indicating a peripheral vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a self-vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
notifying an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result in the predicting (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle is predicted based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision), and
the method further comprises, in a case where the blinker of the self-vehicle and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicate that at least one of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle turns at an intersection such that the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle travel the same lane after the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle pass through the intersection, predicting that there is possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0020]; “the surrounding information management unit 5 determines whether the direction indication state obtained from the turn indicator 1b is a direction indication for turning right or left at a branch point such as an intersection, or a direction indication for changing lanes.” and [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and if it is predicted that the directions indicated by both direction indication states are for changing lanes to the same lane and the inter-vehicle distance between the two vehicles will be less than a predetermined value, it determines that it is not safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and commands the warning unit 7 to provide assistance in issuing a warning to that effect,” if at any point, including an intersection, it is determined two vehicles are entering the same lane a risk of collision can be determined and alerted to the users of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13 Yusuke discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute:
acquiring peripheral vehicle information indicating a peripheral vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of a peripheral vehicle existing around a self-vehicle from the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see at least [0014]; “In addition, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 transmits information about the vehicle, such as…the direction indication state of the vehicle's turn indicator 1b, and information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in, to other vehicles via vehicle-to-vehicle communication…the vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 3 can transmit and receive information about the vehicle itself and other vehicles in real time at a predetermined communication cycle,” the turn indicator corresponds to Applicant’s blinker and the information about the lane the vehicle is traveling in corresponds to both the position and traveling track of the other vehicle, and [0015]; “The vehicle surroundings monitoring unit 4 can measure inter-vehicle relationship values (relative distance, relative speed, inter-vehicle time, etc.) between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in the vicinity using a monitoring sensor,” it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this information can be acquired by either V2V communication or sensors);
predicting a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle based on self-vehicle information indicating a self-vehicle speed, a position, a traveling track, and an indication state of a blinker of the self-vehicle (see at least [0025]; “The surrounding information management unit 5 collects information about the vehicle itself, such as the direction indication state of the direction indicator 1b and vehicle speed information detected by the vehicle speed sensor 1a, via the in-vehicle information receiving unit 1 (step 2). The surrounding information management unit 5 then collects vehicle position information, such as vehicle position information, information about the lane the vehicle is currently traveling in”) and the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles [0032]; “As in As in FIG. 3, the host vehicle A monitors the direction indication state of the turn indicators of the surrounding vehicles C and D, which indicates their intention to change lanes, at a predetermined interval. When a change in the direction indicating state of the turn indicator of vehicle A from no indication state to a right direction indicating state is detected, the direction indicated by the turn indicator state, which indicates the lane change intentions of surrounding vehicles C and D, is compared to predict the road conditions after vehicle A changes lanes in that direction. When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b,” the information acquired is analyzed to determine whether there is a risk for collision); and
notifying an occupant of the self-vehicle based on a prediction result in the predicting (see at least [0032]; “When there is a risk of collision as shown in FIG. 4B, the lane change assist system 10 of the host vehicle A warns the driver not to change lanes into lane b.”), wherein
the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle is predicted based on at least the indication state of the blinker of the self-vehicle, the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle, and the position of the peripheral vehicle with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least [0027]; “Based on the surrounding vehicle information collected by the surrounding information management unit 5 in step 6, the vehicle surrounding situation prediction unit 6 predicts the road conditions around the vehicle when the vehicle changes lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the turn indicator 1b detected in step 1 (step 7),” the surrounding vehicle information includes both information of the host-vehicle and of the surrounding vehicles, and the road condition information corresponds to the risk of collision) , and
in a case where the blinker of the self-vehicle and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicate that at least one of the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle turns at an intersection such that the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle travel the same lane after the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle pass through the intersection, predicting that there is possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0020]; “the surrounding information management unit 5 determines whether the direction indication state obtained from the turn indicator 1b is a direction indication for turning right or left at a branch point such as an intersection, or a direction indication for changing lanes.” and [0022]; “The vehicle surroundings situation prediction unit 6, for example, compares the direction indication state of the vehicle with the direction indication state of the other vehicle to determine whether it is safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and if it is predicted that the directions indicated by both direction indication states are for changing lanes to the same lane and the inter-vehicle distance between the two vehicles will be less than a predetermined value, it determines that it is not safe to change lanes in the direction indicated by the direction indication state of the vehicle itself, and commands the warning unit 7 to provide assistance in issuing a warning to that effect,” if at any point, including an intersection, it is determined two vehicles are entering the same lane a risk of collision can be determined and alerted to the users of the vehicle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US-20190232958 (hereinafter, “Deng”).
Regarding claim 3 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side or within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side of the peripheral vehicle,
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side or within a second range (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side of the peripheral vehicle (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that if a vehicle is determined to be turning (to either of its right or left side), the paths would not cross),
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision (see at least [0067]; “The processing unit 110 may predict that there is a possibility of collision for a pair in which the courses of both the vehicles intersect or coincide with each other among pairs of the three courses 901S, 901R, and 901L predicted for the self-vehicle 100 and the three courses 902S, 902R, and 902L predicted for the peripheral vehicle RV, and predict that there is no possibility of collision for the other pairs,” if paths do not intersect collision is zero) between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0041]; “Because the example paths 210h, 210a do not cross, the risk of a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low. Thus, the computer 105 can determine not to perform extensive threat analysis on the target 200,” the level of risk for collision is negligible and no threat analysis is needed, this corresponds to the zero risk of collision of applicant since both mean the paths do not intersect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 4 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side…the prediction unit predicts that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle of the peripheral vehicle; or
in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within the second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side or the second side of the peripheral vehicle,
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side of the peripheral vehicle … the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that if a vehicle is determined to be turning (to either of its right or left side), the paths would not cross and the collision risk would still be negligible and no warning would be necessary. Additionally, this claim does not contain information as to the state of the self-vehicle and it can therefore be in any state under broadest reasonable interpretation); or
in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within the second range on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3C, the lane 205c corresponds to a second range on the second side, each lane corresponds to a position range) , the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the first side or the second side of the peripheral vehicle, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least Fig. 3C; vehicle 101 is turning to the right which corresponds to the second side, vehicle 200 is located to the right (second side) and is determined as going straight (which is the first side of the host vehicle), however it would be obvious that any path that does not cross would have the same result. If vehicle 101 turns left (first side), and the peripheral vehicle 200 turns right (second side) the paths do not collide therefore no possibility of collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 5 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a first range on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the first side, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least fig. 3C it would be obvious that while Fig. 3C shows a different example, that if the vehicle paths do not intersect the possibility of collision is negligible and no warning is output. The claim does not specify the state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle it would be obvious if the self-vehicle turned left at an intersection, the paths would not intersect if the peripheral vehicle turned right (second side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 6 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the second side of the peripheral vehicle, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle (see at least fig. 3A and 3B, the lane 205b corresponds to a third range ahead of the vehicle, each lane corresponds to a position range), the blinker of the self-vehicle indicates the second side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle indicates the second side of the peripheral vehicle, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0039]; “FIG. 3A illustrates an example intersection in which a target 200 is turning away from the host vehicle 101. The host vehicle 101 has an example path 210h that extends from the roadway lane 205a, the current position of the host vehicle 101, to the roadway lane 205c, i.e., a left-hand tum. The target 200 has an example path 210a that extends from the roadway lane 205b, the current position of the target 200, to the roadway lane 205d. In the example of FIG. 3A, the risk of a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low because the example paths 210h, 210a do not cross, and thus the computer 105 can determine not to perform extensive threat analysis on the target 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Regarding claim 7 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Yusuke does not disclose wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side, and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side of the peripheral vehicle, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle.
Deng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in a case where the peripheral vehicle is located within a third range ahead of the self-vehicle, the blinker of the self-vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side (see at least fig. 3F, the lane 205b corresponds to a third range ahead of the vehicle, each lane corresponds to a position range), and the blinker of the peripheral vehicle does not indicate a direction or indicates the first side of the peripheral vehicle, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict that there is no possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0045]; “Fig. 3F illustrates an example intersection…the computer can detect the target 200 and determine whether to perform extensive threat analysis and actuate one or more components 120 to avoid the target 200. The risk of collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 is low at least because the host vehicle and the target 200 remain in their respective roadway lanes 205a, 205b”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the prediction possibility of Deng. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of focusing computing energy on vehicles with more likely chances of collision (see at least Deng; [0001]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO2020202367A1 (hereinafter, “Koga”)
Regarding claim 9 Yusuke discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yusuke does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not the peripheral vehicle has performed a lane change based on a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle included in the peripheral vehicle information, wherein
in a case where the blinker of the peripheral vehicle continuously indicates a direction even after completion of a lane change of the peripheral vehicle, the prediction unit predicts a possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle not based on the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle.
Koga, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: determine whether or not the peripheral vehicle has performed a lane change based on a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle included in the peripheral vehicle information (see at least [0018-0019]; “First, the control unit 101 acquires and stores information on the direction in which the vehicle is facing (direction information), speed information, and acceleration information from the direction sensor 115 (S301). Next, it is determined whether the vehicle is currently stopped by referring to the speed information or the like (S302). If the vehicle is not stopped, the direction information is acquired again to identify the direction of travel of the vehicle 201 itself (303). Then, the direction stored in step S301 when the turn signal was turned on is compared with the current traveling direction determined in step S303 (S305). If the difference between the two compared directions exceeds a predetermined angle, it is determined that cornering has been completed…If the turn signal is not turned off within a predetermined time after the cornering is completed, the turn signal forgetting to turn off information 151 is set (for example, turned on) (S310).”, wherein
in a case where the blinker of the peripheral vehicle continuously indicates a direction even after completion of a lane change of the peripheral vehicle, the possibility of collision between the self-vehicle and the peripheral vehicle is predicted not based on the indication state of the blinker of the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0021]; “The turn signal forgetting information is generated by the vehicle 201 and transmitted to the server 211 via the antenna 210 together with other status information such as the vehicle's position, direction, speed, and turn signal operation status,” and [0025]; “In step S410, it is determined whether one of a pair of oncoming vehicles is traveling straight and the other is a vehicle that may cross the traveling direction of the oncoming vehicle. In principle, the decision as to whether to go straight through the intersection or turn in any direction is based on the blinker operation status included in the received status information. However, as an exception, a vehicle determined in step S409 to have forgotten to turn off its turn signal is treated as a vehicle going straight. In step S410, it is determined that a vehicle entering the intersection from one direction is a straight-moving vehicle, and a vehicle entering the intersection from the other direction is a vehicle crossing the direction of travel of an oncoming straight-moving vehicle,” if a turn signal is determined to be in error the path of the people is instead determined on the perceived direction of travel, based on this it can be determined whether the pair of vehicles intersect and therefore have a probability of collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the erroneous blinker detection of Koga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving traffic safety (see at least Koga; [0007]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke in view of Deng, as applied to claim 3 and 6 above, in further view of US-20200247398 (hereinafter, “Miyamoto”).
Regarding claim 10 Yusuke in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Yusuke does not disclose wherein the first range is a fan-shaped range located on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle, and
the second range is a fan-shaped range located on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first range is a fan-shaped range located on the first side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle), and
the second range is a fan-shaped range located on the second side with respect to the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the range of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the three detection ranges of Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of detecting objects before the vehicles are fairly close (see at least Miyamoto; [0006]).
Regarding claim 11 Yusuke in view of Deng renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Yusuke does not disclose wherein the third range is a fan-shaped range located ahead of the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the third range is a fan-shaped range located ahead of the self-vehicle and defined by a predetermined distance and a predetermined angle (see at least Fig. 3; an external vehicle is able to be detected in three separate ranges, one ahead, one to the right and one to the left, all are denoted by their own angle). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the range of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the driving assistance system of Yusuke with the three detection ranges of Miyamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of detecting objects before the vehicles are fairly close (see at least Miyamoto; [0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/14/26
Prosecution Insights