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 .
Application Status
This Office Action is in response to the application submitted on 01/06/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and rejected as detailed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicant has claimed priority to foreign application JP2024-047568, filed on 03/25/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "20" and "11A" have both been used to designate a processing unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
[0190] “L1a”
[0192] “L1b”
[0197] “L2a”
[0199] “L2b”
[0200] “L2c”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig 3, uses 11A-11E to describe elements of information processing device 10, but 11 is previously used to describe the can bus in Fig 2, not sure if its explicitly wrong, but could be changed/clarified. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. Claims 8, 9, and 10; all depend on claim 5.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 7 does not depend on claim 5, but is listed before claims 8, 9, and 10.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant can cancel claim 7 and insert it as a new claim 13 to overcome this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claim(s) 1-12 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to an information processing device, which is the statutory category of a machine. Claim 11 is directed to an information processing method, which is the statutory category of a process. Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is the statutory category of a manufacture.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
- Claims 1, 11, and 12 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 1 recites, “a memory in which a computer program is stored; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform processing by executing the computer program, the processing including” this is generic computing elements; “determining whether another vehicle captured in a captured image of a periphery of an own vehicle is a two-wheel vehicle or a four-wheel vehicle,” and “outputting warning information based on an output condition corresponding to a result of the determination.” This is an abstract idea. The system performs generic data gathering using a generic sensor and computing element. The system then determines the type of vehicle and if it meets certain conditions, then outputs a generic alert to a user. A person using a generic computing device could achieve all of these results with their mind.
- Claim 2 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 2 recites, “the processing further includes setting a first inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle, the first inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a first initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with first traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the two-wheel vehicle;” and “the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle is the first inter-vehicle distance or less.” A person with a generic computing device could set a distance value as they often do this with their mind while driving. The further outputting of the warning is based on merely determining that a distance is too low. This is all an abstract idea recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 3 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to set a travelling condition.
- Claim 4 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 4 recites, “wherein the processing further includes excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle and determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle” A person with a generic computing device could determine to exclude a collected element of data if it is deemed unimportant. When driving a person often disregards other vehicles as they move away from an ego-vehicle.
- Claim 5 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 5 recites, “the processing further includes setting second inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle, the second inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a second initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with second traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle;” and “the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less.” A person with a generic computing device could set a distance value as they often do this with their mind while driving. The further outputting of the warning is based on merely determining that a distance is too low. This is all an abstract idea recited at a high level of generality.
- Claim 6 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to set a travelling condition.
- Claim 7 recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. Claim 7 recites, “excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle” A person with a generic computing device could determine to exclude a collected element of data if it is deemed unimportant. When driving a person often disregards other vehicles as they move away from an ego-vehicle.
- Claim 8 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling speeds and distances.
- Claim 9 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling lanes.
- Claim 10 recite(s) insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely further defines elements used to decide to output a warning signal, mainly travelling lanes.
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are generic computing elements and generic conditions used to define these conditions. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The computer elements are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and the use of the judicial exception is generally linked to the particular technological environment of autonomous vehicle driving and sensing without using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and the computer functions of receiving and transmitting data have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of a “memory” and a “processor” recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP2106.05 (d)).
Based on the above analysis, claim(S) 1-12 is/are not eligible subject matter and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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) 1-3, 5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Imbe (US PG Pub 2018/0001819).
Regarding claim 1, Imbe teaches an information processing device comprising: a memory in which a computer program is stored; ([0033] and [0061] teach a system having a memory storing a computer program) and
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform processing by executing the computer program, ([0032] and [0035]-[0036] teach a processor able to execute the stored program) the processing including
determining whether another vehicle captured in a captured image of a periphery of an own vehicle is a two-wheel vehicle or a four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a two or four wheeled vehicle) and
outputting warning information based on an output condition corresponding to a result of the determination. (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system outputting a warning based on the determination of vehicle type and the detected vehicle meeting some kind of warning condition)
Claims 11 and 12 are substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing further includes setting a first inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle, the first inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a first initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with first traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the two-wheel vehicle, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) and
the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle is the first inter-vehicle distance or less. (Fig. 4 and [0041]-[0044] teach outputting a warning when the inter-vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle becomes less than a preset amount)
Regarding claim 3, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the setting of the first inter-vehicle distance is performed by changing the first inter-vehicle distance in accordance with a first condition with which the first traveling situation information matches, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) the first condition being at least one of conditions including: a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, the number of times of changing a traveling direction of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined number of times or more, traveling in a traveling environment at a predetermined illuminance or lower, a driving skill of a driver of the own vehicle being a predetermined level of skill or lower, a driving skill of a driver of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined level of skill or lower, an estimated size of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or less, a color difference between the two-wheel vehicle and a traveling road surface being a predetermined color difference or less, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being a road where high- speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed, an estimated crash severity of the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, an environment of a traveling road surface of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being a predetermined vehicle rollover risk environment, a steering angle of the own vehicle being a predetermined angle or more, deceleration of the own vehicle, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the two-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, a vehicle type of the two-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle, and a predetermined operation by a passenger of the two-wheel vehicle. ([0048]-[0050] teaches the system determining a reason to change the inter-vehicle distance based on the ego-vehicle meeting a predefined condition, i.e. attempting to turn)
Regarding claim 5, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processing further includes setting second inter-vehicle distance in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle, the second inter-vehicle distance being obtained by changing a second initial inter-vehicle distance in accordance with second traveling situation information regarding a traveling situation of at least one of the own vehicle or the four-wheel vehicle, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0040]-[0043] teach the system determining a second inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is not a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) and
the outputting of the warning information is performed when an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. (Fig. 4 and [0040]-[0044] teach outputting a warning when the inter-vehicle distance between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle becomes less than a preset amount)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbe in view of Svensson (US PG Pub 2022/0161767).
Regarding claim 4, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Imbe does not teach wherein the processing further includes excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle and determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
However, Svensson teaches “wherein the processing further includes excluding the two-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the two-wheel vehicle and determining that the two-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.” ([0082]-[0083] teaches the system excluding detected objects from the collision calculation and warning system if it is determined that the detected object does not meet a specific condition, i.e. closeness. This would implicitly teach that if an object is moving away from the ego vehicle it is excluded from this determination. [0059] teaches that the objects detected could be two or four wheeled.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to elements that can detect vehicles surrounding an ego vehicle. These systems can then classify the type of vehicles detected, i.e. two or four wheeled. Once this occurs the system can make further determinations. As recited in Svensson [0003]-[0005] vehicle sensor systems can be used to determine the surroundings of the ego vehicle. Using these systems the ego vehicle can determine the odds of a collision between an ego vehicle and the surrounding vehicles. The system can classify these surrounding vehicles and then based on this determination; calculate the odds of a collision and output a warning. This ensures that a driver can take some form of evasive action and prevent a collision.
Regarding claim 6, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the setting of the second inter-vehicle distance is performed by changing the second inter-vehicle distance in accordance with a second condition with which the second traveling situation information matches, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5; and [0041]-[0043] teach the system determining a first inter-vehicle distance based on the determination that the detected vehicle is a two wheeled vehicle. [0048]-[0050] further elaborate that the inter-vehicle distance is a fluid determination that can change to reflect the current situation of the ego-vehicle and its interactions with the environment) the second condition being at least one of conditions including:
Imbe does not teach a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, an estimated size of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or more, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being a road where high-speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed and an estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle that is traveling in the road being a predetermined severity or more, the estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, a vehicle registration number of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset number, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, and a vehicle type of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle.
However, Svenson teaches “a vehicle speed of the own vehicle being a predetermined speed or higher, an estimated size of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined size or more, a traveling road of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being a road where high-speed traveling at a predetermined speed or higher is allowed and an estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle that is traveling in the road being a predetermined severity or more, the estimated crash severity of the four-wheel vehicle being a predetermined severity or more, a traveling site of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined warning target region, a vehicle registration number of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset number, a traveling region of the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle being in a predetermined area, and a vehicle type of the four-wheel vehicle being a preset warning target vehicle.” ([0071] teaches the system having a determination for conditions that are used to set the inter-vehicle distance, i.e. vehicle speed, position, etc.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 7, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Imbe does not teach wherein the processing further includes excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.
However, Svenson teaches “wherein the processing further includes excluding the four-wheel vehicle from an output target of the warning information in response to determining that the other vehicle is the four-wheel vehicle and determining that the four-wheel vehicle moves away from the own vehicle.” ([0082]-[0083] teaches the system excluding detected objects from the collision calculation and warning system if it is determined that the detected object does not meet a specific condition, i.e. closeness. This would implicitly teach that if an object is moving away from the ego vehicle it is excluded from these determinations. [0059] teaches that the objects detected could be two or four wheeled.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 8, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a relative speed between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is a predetermined relative speed or higher.
However, Svenson teaches “a relative speed between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is a predetermined relative speed or higher.” ([0045] teaches the system determining the relative velocity of the vehicles. [0101] teaches the relative velocity being a high speed above a given amount)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 9, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
, and
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a first lane on which the own vehicle travels matches with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels.
However, Svenson teaches “a first lane on which the own vehicle travels matches with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels.” (Fig. 9 and [0099]-[0100] teaches the system determining that the ego vehicle and a detected vehicle are subject to a “longitudinal collision” this is a collision that occurs when the other vehicle and ego vehicle would collide while traveling in the same lane)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Regarding claim 10, Imbe teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the outputting of the warning information is performed when the other vehicle is determined to be the four-wheel vehicle, (Claim 1, [0018], [0026], and [0029] teach the system determining that a vehicle detected by a camera of an ego vehicle is a four wheeled vehicle)
the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the four-wheel vehicle is the second inter-vehicle distance or less. ([0029] teaches the inter-vehicle distance being less than a certain amount)
Imbe does not teach a first lane on which the own vehicle travels does not match with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels; and a lane present in a planned traveling change direction of the own vehicle matches with the second lane.
However, Svenson teaches “a first lane on which the own vehicle travels does not match with a second lane on which the four-wheel vehicle travels;” (Fig. 9 and [0100]-[0101] teach the system determining the “lateral separation” between the ego vehicle and the detected vehicle. The lateral separation would be analogous to determining that the vehicles are not in the same travel lane as if they have lateral separation they cannot be in the same lane) and “a lane present in a planned traveling change direction of the own vehicle matches with the second lane.” ([0069] teaches the system of the ego vehicle having a predetermined trajectory, and calculating the probability that a collision will occur based on said detected vehicle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Imbe with Svensson; and have a reasonable expectation of success, for the reasons recited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lyngfelt (US Pat 12,427,983) teaches a vehicle control system (2) comprising a control unit arrangement (3) and at least one sensor arrangement (4, 5) in an ego vehicle (1). The sensor arrangement (4, 5) is adapted to provide sensor information for one preceding target vehicle (6) and surrounding target vehicles (7, 8, 9, 10, 11) separate from the preceding target vehicle (6). The control unit arrangement (3) is adapted to control an ego vehicle speed (v.sub.1) in dependence of the sensor information associated with the preceding target vehicle (6) such that an ego distance (r.sub.1) between the ego vehicle (1) and the preceding target vehicle (6) is obtained. A time gap (ΔT.sub.1) is defined as the time for travelling the ego distance (r.sub.1) at the ego vehicle speed (vi), The control unit arrangement (8) is adapted to control the ego vehicle speed (V.sub.1) in dependence of the sensor information associated with the surrounding target vehicles (7, 8, 9, 10, 11) such that a present time gap (ΔT.sub.1) is maintained in dependence of the number of detected surrounding target vehicles (11).
Henke (US PG Pub 2022/0379917) teaches a trajectory for an autonomous machine may be evaluated for safety based at least on determining whether the autonomous machine would be capable of occupying points of the trajectory in space-time while still being able to avoid a potential future collision with one or more objects in the environment through use of one or more safety procedures. To do so, a point of the trajectory may be evaluated for conflict based at least on a comparison between points in space-time that correspond to the autonomous machine executing the safety procedure(s) from the point and arrival times of the one or more objects to corresponding position(s) in the environment. A trajectory may be sampled and evaluated for conflicts at various points throughout the trajectory. Based on results of one or more evaluations, the trajectory may be scored, eliminated from consideration, or otherwise considered for control of the autonomous machine.
Ito (US PG Pub 2022/0219688) teaches a vehicle speed/headway control function and a lane-keeping function are provided as driving assist functions to assist in a driving operation by a driver. A mode-switching controller is provided for switching between the modes. In the lane-keeping assist mode, it is assessed whether or not a traveling condition has been met that an actual vehicle speed of the host vehicle exceeds a speed limit of a roadway on which the host vehicle is traveling during lane-keeping travel in which “hands-off mode,” which allows the driver to remove their hands from the steering wheel, has been selected. The mode is switched from “hands-off mode” to “hands-on mode,” which has as a condition that the driver has their hands on the steering wheel, upon assessing that the traveling condition that the actual vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit has been met.
Abbott (US PG Pub 2021/0042535) teaches in various examples, object fence corresponding to objects detected by an ego-vehicle may be used to determine overlap of the object fences with lanes on a driving surface. A lane mask may be generated corresponding to the lanes on the driving surface, and the object fences may be compared to the lanes of the lane mask to determine the overlap. Where an object fence is located in more than one lane, a boundary scoring approach may be used to determine a ratio of overlap of the boundary fence, and thus the object, with each of the lanes. The overlap with one or more lanes for each object may be used to determine lane assignments for the objects, and the lane assignments may be used by the ego-vehicle to determine a path or trajectory along the driving surface.
Nishigaki (US PG pub 2012/0293357) teaches vehicle surroundings monitoring device includes a moving direction determining unit 20 which determines whether a physical body is moving in a traveling direction of a self vehicle or a transverse direction orthogonal to the traveling direction, from a change in a detection position of the physical body by a laser radar 8, wherein a classification determining unit 21 executes a first classification determining process of determining the physical body determined to be moving in the traveling direction as a four-wheel vehicle when dimensions of the physical body obtained from the detected position by the laser radar 8 is within a range of A1, and a second classification determining process of determining the physical body determined to be moving in the transverse direction as the four-wheel vehicle when the dimensions of the physical body obtained from the detected position by the laser radar 8 is within a range of B1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights