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 Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/11/2026, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to cancellation of claim 3 by applicant. The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 4 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Lee et al. (US 20200110418 A1) or Lim et al. (US 20240177609 A1) references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (i.e. amendment to independent claim 4 clarifying the execution of a suppression process in a specific roundabout situation corresponding to a situation in which the own vehicle is entering the circulation path and the other vehicle passes a connection part before the own vehicle reaches the connection part, thereby avoiding unnecessary activation of a collision-risk based vehicle control).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200110418 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Lim et al. (US 20240177609 A1; hereinafter Lim) in further view of Okumura et al. (US 20160161270 A1; Okumura).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a vehicle control device (see at least, [0029] FIG. 2B…a vehicle control apparatus) comprising: a processor (see at least, [0008] a vehicle control apparatus includes …a controller configured to include at least one processor) configured to execute a vehicle control for assist to reduce a collision risk between an own vehicle and a target object existing in a predetermined angle range in front of a traveling direction of the own vehicle, when an execution condition is satisfied (see at least, Fig 7, [0116] when the target 20 is located in the zone C, the vehicle controller 230 may generate and output a control signal to force brake the vehicle 10), change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition based on a behavior of the own vehicle on a traveling route and a behavior of other vehicle that is existing on the traveling route (see at least, Fig 8, [0136] When the vehicle 10 stops, the vehicle 10 may set the second region of interest A2, detect the target 20 that has entered roundabout, and determine whether the target 20 is located in the second region of interest A2), wherein the traveling route includes a circulation path of a roundabout and vicinity of the roundabout on a connecting path that connect to the circulation path (see at least, Fig 8).
[AltContent: textbox (e.g. Predetermined Angle Ranges (e.g. Zones A, B and C))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Connecting Path)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Circulation Path)]
PNG
media_image1.png
500
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach when a third specific condition is satisfied, execute a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the third specific condition is not satisfied, wherein the third specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a third own vehicle behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a fifth other vehicle behavior or a sixth other vehicle behavior, wherein the third own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is travelling on a third connecting path connected to the circulation path in order to enter the circulation path or the own vehicle is stopping on the third connecting path, wherein the fifth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is travelling on the circulation path toward a connection part where the circulation path is connected to the third connecting path, and wherein the sixth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter the third connecting path. However, Lim teaches these limitations.
Lim teaches when a third specific condition is satisfied, execute a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the third specific condition is not satisfied (see at least, [0081] through a traveling negotiation
coordination request of the traveling vehicle (HV) that temporarily stops before entering the roundabout, a traveling negotiation coordination result which is transmitted by the intervention of the RSU, or traveling negotiations between vehicles…the traveling behavior control in the roundabout is performed), wherein the third specific condition is satisfied when the behavior of the own vehicle is a third own vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle HV) behavior and the behavior of other vehicle is either a fifth other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV4) or a sixth other vehicle behavior (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV2), wherein the third own vehicle behavior is satisfied when the own vehicle is travelling on a third connecting path connected to the circulation path in order to enter the circulation path or the own vehicle is stopping on the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, [0082] the traveling vehicle HV enters the roundabout), wherein the fifth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is travelling on the circulation path toward a connection part where the circulation path is connected to the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV4), and wherein the sixth other vehicle behavior is satisfied when the other vehicle is attempting to exit the circulation path and enter the third connecting path (see at least, Fig 5, Vehicle RV2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Sixth Other Vehicle Behavior, RV2)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Fifth Other Vehicle Behavior, RV4)][AltContent: textbox (e.g. Third Own Vehicle Behavior, HV)]
PNG
media_image2.png
517
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lee to include the processor is configured to execute, when a third specific condition is satisfied, a suppression process to change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition more difficult to be satisfied than when the third specific condition is not satisfied as taught by Lim on order to execute safe traveling and prevent accidents through traveling negotiations between a vehicle that intends to enter a roundabout and a vehicle that is traveling within the roundabout (Lim, [0032]).
Lim further does not explicitly teach wherein the suppression process is executed when the other vehicle passes the connection part before the own vehicle reaches the connection part. However, Okumura teaches this limitation.
Okumura teaches wherein the suppression process is executed when the other vehicle passes the connection part before the own vehicle reaches the connection part (see at least, [0039] after the autonomous vehicle 200 has passed the check point 504 and collected the updated information regarding a clear roundabout 500, the automated driving system can send a command to one or more vehicle systems 118 to proceed through the roundabout 500…will no longer be controlled to
decelerate toward a stop after the check point 504, and instead, will be controlled to traverse the
roundabout 500).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lim to include the suppression process is executed when the other vehicle passes the connection part before the own vehicle reaches the connection part as taught by Okumura in order to identify clear passage so the autonomous vehicle can safely navigate the intersection (Okumura, [0046]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumano et al. (US 20200168097 A1) discloses when an execution condition is satisfied, wherein the execution condition is satisfied when a determination condition that the collision risk is greater than or equal to a predetermined level is satisfied, change at least one of the execution condition or the determination condition based on a behavior of the own vehicle on a traveling route and a behavior of other vehicle that is existing on the traveling route (e.g. 0069] In a case in which the intersection recognized by the recognizer 130 is a circular intersection, the condition changer 148 changes the determination condition referred to by the determiner 146 to a condition under which it is easier for the entry into the intersection to be determined to be allowed).
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 TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights