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 Response to Non-Final Action filed June 29, 2026. Claims 1-11 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2024-004516, filed January 16, 2024.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under U.S.C. § 101 previously stated for the original claims 1-8 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see, filed Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the section titled Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection of the Non-Final Action filed April 7, 2026, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauchi (US 20060208923, already of record), in view of Gabriel et al. (US 20260015010; hereinafter Gabriel), and further in view of Arndt Dr habil et al. (US 20220415171; hereinafter Christoph, already of record).
Regarding Claim 1,
Tauchi teaches
A host vehicle (Tauchi: Abstract) comprising:
...
...the vehicle control device comprising:
a processor configured to determine whether or not a forward moving vehicle traveling ahead of a host vehicle and an oncoming vehicle traveling toward the host vehicle are present in a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the host vehicle,... (Tauchi: Paragraph [0057])
...
determine whether or not a narrow road section exists between the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle where it is difficult for the host vehicle and the oncoming vehicle to travel past each other, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0070]) when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle are present, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0011], [0060])
determine whether or not the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, based on a response of the forward moving vehicle to the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the narrow road section exists, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
...
Tauchi does not teach an automatic control device for the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Gabriel teaches
...
an automatic control device configured to control the host vehicle; (Gabriel: Paragraph [0085]-[0088], [0096], [0100]-[0101]) and
a vehicle control device controlled by the automatic control device, (Gabriel: Paragraph [0045]-[0047])
...
...the host vehicle comprising a self-driving vehicle, (Gabriel: Paragraph [0096])
...
wherein the automatic control device is configured to control steering, actuation, and braking of the host vehicle in accordance with the one or more control signals to enter into the narrow road section in response to a received notification from the vehicle control device are based on object detection information and road information. (Gabriel: Paragraph [0096]; “The actuator group 7 is a group of apparatuses that control control elements such as steering, braking, and accelerating that determine the movement of the host vehicle.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle control device of Tauchi with the automatic processes of Gabriel for the benefit of realizing comfortable and safe driving assistance and autonomous driving of vehicles. (Gabriel: Paragraph [0002])
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, does not explicitly teach a system for determining if the host vehicle will arrive at a narrow section of road or be able to pass through the narrow section before an oncoming vehicle arrives at the narrow section of road.
However in the same field of endeavor, Christoph teaches
...
decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Christoph: Paragraph [0041]-[0042])
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the narrow road navigation system of Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, with the narrow road crossing optimization of Christoph for the benefit of designing a safer passage of a plurality of vehicles along narrow streets. (Christoph: Paragraph [0006])
Regarding Claim 2,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, (Christoph: Paragraph [0041]-[0042]) and
decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
The motivation to combine Tauchi, Gabriel, and Christoph, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes beside the oncoming vehicle after having passed through the narrow road section, (Christoph: Paragraph [0020]-[0021], [0038]-[0041]) and
decide that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will pass through the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes beside the oncoming vehicle after having passed through the narrow road section. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
The motivation to combine Tauchi, Gabriel, and Christoph, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, and a distance between the forward moving vehicle and the host vehicle is shorter than a predetermined reference distance, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0008], [0075]) and
decide that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will pass through the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, and the distance between the forward moving vehicle and the host vehicle is shorter than the predetermined reference distance. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond a predetermined reference speed amount after it has been decided that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
determine that the host vehicle cannot enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond the predetermined reference speed amount, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) and
decide to cancel the decision allowing the host vehicle to enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle so that the host vehicle does not enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle cannot enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond the predetermined reference speed amount while the forward moving vehicle is traveling in the narrow road section after it has been decided that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.)
Regarding Claim 7, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, as applied to claims 1-7 above, further in view of Ucar et al. (US 20220089162; hereinafter Ucar) and further in view of Kawagoe (US 20160124432).
Regarding Claim 9,
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, teaches
The host vehicle according to claim 1,...
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, does not explicitly teach specific information being included in the object detection.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ucar teaches
...wherein the object detection information indicates: a type of object, (Ucar: Paragraph [0062]; “The one or more environment sensors 122 can be configured to detect other things in the external environment of the vehicle 100, such as, for example, lane markers, signs, traffic lights, traffic signs, lane lines, crosswalks, curbs proximate the vehicle 100, off-road objects, etc.”) a location of the object, (Ucar: Paragraph [0032]; “The vehicle 100 may subsequently request more information from other connected vehicles in the vicinity or from an edge or a cloud server. As the cloud leader, the vehicle 100 may receive information about other vehicles such as speed, location, acceleration, road geometry, road traffic signs, traffic flow, density, and so on.”) an acceleration of the object, (Ucar: Paragraph [0032]; “The vehicle 100 may subsequently request more information from other connected vehicles in the vicinity or from an edge or a cloud server. As the cloud leader, the vehicle 100 may receive information about other vehicles such as speed, location, acceleration, road geometry, road traffic signs, traffic flow, density, and so on.”) a traveling lane of the object, (Ucar: Paragraph [0032], FIG. 3; “The vehicle 100 may subsequently request more information from other connected vehicles in the vicinity or from an edge or a cloud server. As the cloud leader, the vehicle 100 may receive information about other vehicles such as speed, location, acceleration, road geometry, road traffic signs, traffic flow, density, and so on.” By reciving data on the location of the object and the road geometry, the vehicle would be obtaining lane information as well.) ... and the road information indicates a location of lane marking lines of a road. (Ucar: Paragraph [0062])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the host vehicle system of Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, and further in view of Christoph, with the object detection information of Ucar for the benefit of using a connected vehicle network to resolve a standoff using a happens-before relationship. (Ucar: Paragraph [0001])
Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, further in view of Christoph, and further in view of Ucar, does not teach
However in the same field of endeavor, Kawagoe teaches
wherein the object detection information indicates: ... an object identification number of the object,... (Kawagoe: Paragraph [0029]-[0032])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the object detection information of Tauchi, in view of Gabriel, further in view of Christoph, and even further in view of Ucar, with the object identification number of Kawagoe for the benefit of determining priority of passage through vehicle-to-vehicle communications when automatically driven vehicles face each other on a road. (Kawagoe: Paragraph [0002])
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is analogous to Claim 9 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is analogous to Claim 9 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 9.
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights