CTNF 19/061,414 CTNF 100527 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. This office action is in response to an application filed on 2/24/2025. Claims 1-19 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted on 2/24/25 & 10/1/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation in claims 1 and 19. Additionally, a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree in claims 1-3 and 19. Again, a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body in claims 1, 3-7. Additionally, identification unit configured to identify the cooperation partner in claim 9. Lastly, area identification unit configured to identify the specific area in claims 10-12 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See at least, [0024] – “The ECUs 22 and 23 control detection units for detecting surrounding situations of the vehicle, and perform information processing on detection results.” & See Also Fig. 2 – 22 – ECU , 201 , 203, 202 [0036] – “A cooperative action determination unit 203 determines action of the vehicle 1 in order to take cooperative action with another moving body to be described later. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the cooperative action determination unit 203 includes an area identification unit 301, a degree calculation unit 302, and an action determination unit 303.” If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claims 1-17 are directed to A moving body control system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 18 are directed to A control method of a moving body control system (i.e., a method). Therefore, claims 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 19 is directed to A control method of a moving body control system (i.e., a method). Therefore, claims 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (mental process) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Independent claims 1, 18 and 19 recite: that determines action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route, the moving body control system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner ; a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner , based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree , wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process . For example, “ that determines action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route. ” In the context of this claim shows a simple use of perception as to whether or not an object or object vehicle is travelling through a same point on the road as a host vehicle and can be performed entirely mentally by a human mind. The other example, “ cause the moving body control system to function… configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner… ” In the context of this claim after obtaining information regarding another vehicle on the road a mathematical formulation regarding a level of cooperation between the vehicles is estimated and can be performed mentally, which can be done with the aid of pen and paper. Finally, “ determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree ” in the context of this claim is further using perception to make a judgement about what an action of the host vehicle should be to alter the mathematical formulation in regards to the cooperation degree, which can be done mentally with the aid of pen and paper. Essentially, this system is collecting data to plug into a mathematical formula to determine whether a collision between vehicles would happen. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (Where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”): that determines action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route, the moving body control system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors , cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner ; a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner , based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree , wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “ based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; ”, “ configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner .”, and “ wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. .” These two limitations merely are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (ECU) to perform the system’s configuration. In particular, the step of receiving information regarding a traffic situation are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations, “ the moving body control system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors ,”, “ a calculation unit ”, “ a determination unit ”, and “ an acquisition unit ”. Each recited limitation is merely using generic computer components to execute the otherwise stated mental process and with the inclusion of each additional components doesn’t further the functioning capability of a computer as generic sensors and processors are used to execute the cited limitations within. The computer implemented system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating step. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic processor to perform the receiving and updating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “based on”, and “acquire” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “based on”, and “acquire” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle and the data transferring over a network is done through well understood and routine communication pathways. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, as well as, transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Dependent claims 2-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 and 3 mention “…calculates the cooperation degree…” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being a mental process as the cooperation degree could be calculated by a human with aid of pen and paper and would not allow claim 2 or 3 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 4 and 5 mention “…determines the action of the moving body” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being a mental process as perception can be used to determine an action taken and would not allow claim 4 or 5 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 6 mention “…determination unit calculates the first cost and the second cost” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for utilizing mathematical formulas and would not allow claim 6 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 7 mention “… unit multiplies a cost calculated…” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for utilizing mathematical formulas and would not allow claim 7 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 8 mention “…coefficient is based on…” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for utilizing mathematical formulas and would not allow claim 8 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 9 mention “identify the cooperation partner” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being a mental process as perception can be used to determine a cooperation partner and would not allow claim 9 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 10, 11, and 12 mention “identify the specific area” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being a mental process as perception can be used to determine a specific area and would not allow claim 10, 11, and 12 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 13 mentions “wherein the specific area includes an area through which the moving body” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining the received data from the limitation regarding the area type and thus would not make claims 13 eligible subject matter. Claims 14 mention “…the cooperation partner moving in an advancing direction different from an advancing direction of the moving body” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining the received data from the limitation regarding the area type and thus would not make claims 14 eligible subject matter. Claims 15 mention “…the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining the received data from the limitation regarding the area type and thus would not make claims 15 eligible subject matter. Claim 16 mentions “…based on determined action of the moving body.…” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining the received data from the limitation regarding the area type and thus would not make claims 16 eligible subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-6 & 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon ( US 2017/0345310 Al ) in view of Nagashima (JP2019070900A) . Regarding Claim 1 Yoon teaches A moving body control system that determines action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route, (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “There are provided an apparatus and a method for controlling a lane change considering priority” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 2B & See Also Pg. 10 – [0052] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. [0053] In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger.” ) the moving body control system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, ( Pg. 10 – [0038] – “the lane change supporter 150 may include at least one processor and at least one memory.” ) when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; ( Pg. 8 – [0009] – “According to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for controlling a lane change by at least one processor includes: checking whether or not there is an object vehicle having collision possibility that attempts to change a lane from a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which an ego-vehicle is being driven to a target road, before or during the lane change of the ego-vehicle; and determining a priority vehicle that first performs the lane change among the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle considering at least one of accessibility to the target road when there is the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point when the object vehicle or the ego-vehicle is positioned on a road to be joined.” (equates to when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; as the quote shows the acquiring the target lane and trajectory of the ego vehicle and the movement of the other vehicle in a target area in which a collision may happen. ) ) a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, (Pg. 11 – [0068] – “If there is the vehicle of interest the collision judger 130 checks whether or not there is collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest (S340). In this case, the collision judger 130 may check the collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest using speeds of the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest and a longitudinal distance between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0071] – “Here, the priority determiner 140 may also determine the priority vehicle using at least one of accessibility to the target lane of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point” (equates to a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, as the quotes show a cooperation between the vehicles in terms of when a collision is detected to mitigate it and then be able to create a join point in which both vehicles may merge.) ) based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; (Pg. 11 – [0072] – “As described above, according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, since the collision danger of the two vehicles that change their lanes toward the same road may be prevented in advance, a safe driving of the driver may be supported” (equates to based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; as the trajectories of both vehicles changing lanes is considered to ensure safe driving takes place over the monitored region.) ) Yet Yoon fails to specifically teach and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. Nagashima teaches and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. (Pg. 5 – [0044] – “The risk determination unit 84 determines the passing risk at the passing position 124 by comparing the information of the road width acquired in step S4 with the map M stored in the storage device 52. Further, the threshold value corresponding to the road type acquired in step S4 is specified, and it is determined whether the passing risk is larger than the threshold value. If the passing position 124 is other than the crossing 130, the first threshold Th1 is used to determine the magnitude of the passing risk” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0045] – “In step S6, when the passing risk is larger than the threshold (step S6: YES), the process proceeds to step S7.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0047] – “When the process proceeds from step S6 to step S7, passing position change control is executed. The action setting unit 86 selects the content of the traveling control to be performed by the vehicle control unit 90. The action setting unit 86 searches for another position 126 having a wide road width between the current position P10 of the host vehicle 10 and the position P20 of the oncoming vehicle 100a, and causes the target position 10 to perform the passing by another position 126. Choose For example, as shown in FIG. 7, when the separate position 126 is closer to the host vehicle 10 than the passing position 124, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for decelerating the host vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 8, when the own vehicle 10 reaches the other position 126 or approaches to a predetermined distance of the other position 126, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for stopping the own vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10” (equates to and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. as the indication of the degree increasing is shown by the passing to s6 to s7 wherein the separation degree between the vehicles is big enough to elicit a traveling control mode to be initiated by s7.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon to include and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area as this allows for a specific measure between the cooperation between the ego and object vehicle in which a degree specifically changes in which then a mode of control is only then given once the determination of a collision is minimized. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area as these limitations allow for a changing degree in which a value of cooperation can be modulated and understood in a variety of vehicle scenarios and thus a traveling mode given to a host vehicle to ensure a safe passage. Regarding Claim 2 Yoon-Nagashima teaches ( Yoon teaches the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates the cooperation degree by calculating a ratio between a time necessary for one of the moving body and the cooperation partner that arrives earlier to pass through the specific area and a predicted arrival time difference at the specific area between the moving body and the cooperation partner. (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to wherein the calculation unit calculates the cooperation degree by calculating a ratio between a time necessary for one of the moving body and the cooperation partner that arrives earlier to pass through the specific area and a predicted arrival time difference at the specific area between the moving body and the cooperation partner. As the quote shows a time t+k in which the vehicle will collide as the both are merging to the same lane at a predicted time and in this scenario the priority of the vehicle B is given to merge at time t+k+x and the vehicle A keeps in original lane and completes its lane change at a later time when the distance between the two is big enough and thus a cooperation degree is calculated to ensure safe passage of either vehicle merging in the lane at their own times.) ) Regarding Claim 3 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations:) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit changes the moving situation of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, and the calculation unit calculates a new cooperation degree, based on a changed moving situation of the moving body. (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to wherein the determination unit changes the moving situation of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, and the calculation unit calculates a new cooperation degree, based on a changed moving situation of the moving body. As the quote shows the changing of the moving situation of vehicle by having it remain in the original lane rather than merging in the same lane as vehicle B at the same time and then a new cooperation degree is calculated between the vehicle as the vehicle b accelerates forward and eventually the distance becomes large enough for vehicle A to merge into that lane as well.) ) Regarding Claim 4 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations:) The moving body control system according to claim 3, wherein the determination unit changes the moving situation of the moving body toward the specific area, (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to the determination unit changes the moving situation of the moving body toward the specific area, as the vehicle A is shown to remain in the original lane rather than merge as intended and thus the moving situation is changed to remain in the first lane.) ) and determines the action of the moving body to achieve either a first aspect in which the moving body enters the specific area after the cooperation partner exits from the specific area, or a second aspect in which the moving body passes through the specific area before the cooperation partner enters the specific area. (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to determines the action of the moving body to achieve either a first aspect in which the moving body enters the specific area after the cooperation partner exits from the specific area, or a second aspect in which the moving body passes through the specific area before the cooperation partner enters the specific area. as the vehicle a is shown to decelerate and then enter the lane after the vehicle B once the distance is big enough. ) ) Regarding Claim 5 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations:) The moving body control system according to claim 4, wherein the determination unit determines the action of the moving body, (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t.”) Yet Yoon fails to specifically teach based on a comparison between a first cost for achieving the first aspect as a result of the action of the moving body and a second cost for achieving the second aspect as a result of the action of the moving body. Nagashima teaches based on a comparison between a first cost for achieving the first aspect as a result of the action of the moving body and a second cost for achieving the second aspect as a result of the action of the moving body. (Pg. 6 – [0047] – “As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10” (equates to based on a comparison between a first cost for achieving the first aspect as a result of the action of the moving body and a second cost for achieving the second aspect as a result of the action of the moving body. As the quote shows the first cost being whether or not a collusion will take place and a second cost ensuring the vehicle can make the passing maneuver within a legal speed.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon to include based on a comparison between a first cost for achieving the first aspect as a result of the action of the moving body and a second cost for achieving the second aspect as a result of the action of the moving body as these limitations allow for another factor of safety and legality to be implemented to the scenario where instead of simply only viewing the collision factor a cost associated with the legal speed in which a vehicle can travel within while making a maneuver is considered. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include based on a comparison between a first cost for achieving the first aspect as a result of the action of the moving body and a second cost for achieving the second aspect as a result of the action of the moving body as this allows for most external factors to the vehicle scenario to be considered before making a pass or lane change. Regarding Claim 6 Yoon-Nagashima teaches The moving body control system according to claim 5, as previously mapped above. Yet Yoon fails to teach wherein the determination unit calculates the first cost and the second cost from a current moving situation of the moving body, based on an index of comfort in a case where the moving body acts to achieve the moving situation of the moving body corresponding to each cost. Nagashima teaches wherein the determination unit calculates the first cost and the second cost from a current moving situation of the moving body (Pg. 6 – [0047] – “As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10”) based on an index of comfort in a case where the moving body acts to achieve the moving situation of the moving body corresponding to each cost. (Pg. 7 – [0057] – “According to the above configuration, since the host vehicle 10 is controlled such that the passing position 124 becomes the other position 126 according to the passing risk at the passing position 124, the passing risk between the own vehicle 10 and the oncoming vehicle 100a does not occur Or it can be done at a position where the passing risk is small. Therefore, it is possible to smoothly pass the host vehicle 10 and the oncoming vehicle 100a” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0041] – “First, a method of predicting the passing position 124 in a scene where there is no crossing 130 between the host vehicle 10 and the oncoming vehicle 100a will be described with reference to FIG. The passing position prediction unit 82 determines a traveling distance D1 which travels during a predetermined time, on the assumption that the host vehicle 10 travels at the current vehicle speed V1. Further, a position P1n (n = 1, 2,...) At which the vehicle 10 arrives is determined each time a predetermined time elapses from the current position P10 of the vehicle 10 as a starting point. In addition, the passing position prediction unit 82 determines a traveling distance D2 in which the oncoming vehicle 100a moves during a predetermined time, on the assumption that the oncoming vehicle 100a travels at the current vehicle speed V2. Further, a position P2n (n = 1, 2,...) At which the oncoming vehicle 100a reaches is determined each time a predetermined time elapses from the current position P20 of the oncoming vehicle 100a as a starting point. A point where the position P1 n of the host vehicle 10 and the position P2 n of the oncoming vehicle 100 a coincide with each other is defined as a passing position 124. In FIG. 5, since the position P13 and the position P23 coincide with each other, this point is referred to as a passing position 124.” (equates to based on an index of comfort in a case where the moving body acts to achieve the moving situation of the moving body corresponding to each cost. As the first quote shows the minimization of the passing risk which is tied to the passing position and second quote further describes the situation in which the passing occurs at wherein the comfort of passenger can be tied directly to the passing risk based on a smooth pass being high on the comfort index.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon to include wherein the determination unit calculates the first cost and the second cost from a current moving situation of the moving body, based on an index of comfort in a case where the moving body acts to achieve the moving situation of the moving body corresponding to each cost as these limitations allow for the passenger comfort to be factored into the cooperation degree. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the determination unit calculates the first cost and the second cost from a current moving situation of the moving body, based on an index of comfort in a case where the moving body acts to achieve the moving situation of the moving body corresponding to each cost as these allow for passenger comfort to be considered and not just whether or not the vehicles will pass each other without interaction allowing the passengers of the vehicle to also feel at ease. Regarding Claim 9 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the moving body control system to function as an identification unit configured to identify the cooperation partner, (Pg. 11 – [0065-0066] – “Next, the collision judger 130 checks whether or not there is a vehicle of interest that attempts to change a lane to the target road on a region of interest road (S330). [0066] In this case, the collision judger 130 may check whether or not there is the vehicle of interest using at least one of at least one sensor 110 such as lidar, radar, and a camera, communication of V2X, Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and connectivity based communications. As such, the collision judger 130 may check whether or not there is the vehicle of interest by receiving the lane change intention and the information of the target road from other vehicles.” (equates to wherein the instructions further cause the moving body control system to function as an identification unit configured to identify the cooperation partner as the quote shows the determination of another vehicle merging in the same lane at the same time via v2v communication and thus the cooperation partner would be the host vehicle working with this vehicle to best understand its driving intentions.) ) based on a predicted arrival time difference at the specific area between the moving body and each of a plurality of traffic participants. (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to based on a predicted arrival time difference at the specific area between the moving body and each of a plurality of traffic participants. As the quote shoes the time in which each will arrive in the lane after merging and the time coinciding allowing for the system to stagger the host vehicles arrival in the merger to allow the cooperation partner first access to the lane.) ) Regarding Claim 10 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the moving body control system to function as an area identification unit configured to identify the specific area, based on data from a sensor included in the moving body. (Pg. 8 – [0018] – “When an ego-vehicle attempts to change a lane on which the ego-vehicle is being driven, the collision judger 130 checks, based on received information from a sensor 110 and/or a communicator 120, a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which the ego-vehicle is being driven.” ) Regarding Claim 11 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 10, wherein the area identification unit identifies the specific area, based on image data captured by the moving body. (Pg. 9 – [0022] – “The collision judger 130 may check whether or not there is the object vehicle having collision danger, based on information received from least one sensor 110 of lidar, radar, and a camera” & See Also Pg. 8 – [0018] – “When an ego-vehicle attempts to change a lane on which the ego-vehicle is being driven, the collision judger 130 checks, based on received information from a sensor 110 and/or a communicator 120, a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which the ego-vehicle is being driven.” ) Regarding Claim 12 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 10, wherein the area identification unit identifies the specific area, based on map data. (Pg. 9 – [0023] – “In this case, the collision judger 130 may also check whether or not there is the object vehicle by checking a position of a surrounding vehicle by a GPS coordinate, or the like used by a path guidance device such as navigation, or the like, based on information received through the communicator 120.” (equates to wherein the area identification unit identifies the specific area, based on map data as the GPS and navigation equate specifically to the map data wherein a potential collision is detected based on said information.) ) Regarding Claim 13 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the specific area includes an area through which the moving body and the cooperation partner are each capable of passing and through which the moving body and the cooperation partner are incapable of passing simultaneously. (Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” & See Also Pg. 9 – [0035] – “In the case in which the ego-vehicle is not the priority vehicle, but is the autonomous vehicle, the lane change supporter 150 may attempt to change the lane after the lane change of the object vehicle. In this case, the lane change supporter 150 may also perform a control such as deceleration, or the like, as needed.” (equates to wherein the specific area includes an area through which the moving body and the cooperation partner are each capable of passing and through which the moving body and the cooperation partner are incapable of passing simultaneously as the first quote shows the situation in which the vehicle a and b are incapable of passing simultaneously as vehicle a allows the vehicle b to pass first and the second quote shows a situation in which the vehicles are controlled to allow for simultaneous movement where both completed he action at the same time. ) ) Regarding Claim 14 Yoon-Nagashima teaches (Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 13, wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in an advancing direction different from an advancing direction of the moving body. (Pg. 4 – Fig. 2b – 7 See Also Pg. 10 – [0052- 0055] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger. As a check result, since the vehicle B is slightly closer to the center of the second road than the vehicle A and a body thereof also more comes over to the second road, the priority determiner 140 judges that the vehicle B is the priority vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle B having priority continues to perform the lane change to the second road at a point of time (t+k+x), which is after the determination of priority. In this case (the point of time (t+k+x)), the vehicle A returns to the first road, which is an original lane, and performs the lane change after securing the safety distance by deceleration or acceleration after the completion of the lane change of the vehicle B.” (equates to wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in an advancing direction different from an advancing direction of the moving body as the quote shows the vehicle B and vehicle A going through the same specific region wherein the vehicle be is advancing in a direction different than vehicle A as the vehicle be is advancing in the lane to its left as displayed in fig. 2b and the vehicle A continues straight through the specified region.) ) Regarding Claim 15 Yoon - Nagashima teaches The moving body control system according to claim 14, as previously taught above . Yet Yoon fails to teach wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body. Nagashima teaches wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body. (Fig. 7 and fig. 8 & See Also Pg. 6 – [0047] – “Choose For example, as shown in FIG. 7, when the separate position 126 is closer to the host vehicle 10 than the passing position 124, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for decelerating the host vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 8, when the own vehicle 10 reaches the other position 126 or approaches to a predetermined distance of the other position 126, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for stopping the own vehicle 10” (equates to wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body. As the figures and quote shows the ego vehicles cooperation partner to be the vehicle travelling in an opposing direction but going through a similar region I which the ego vehicle waits for the object vehicle to pass before changing lanes. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system claimed by Yoon to include wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body. As this limitation allows for wider variety of driving situations to be included in this cooperation system in which vehicles other than those traveling in a similar direction to the ego vehicle are considered for cooperation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the moving body and the cooperation partner each pass through the specific area, the cooperation partner moving in the advancing direction opposite to the advancing direction of the moving body as this allows for a car in an opposing lane of travel to be considered for the cooperation situation rather than a lane change happening in the same direction as described by Yoon. Regarding Claim 16 Yoon-Nagashima teaches ( Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the moving body control system to function as a control unit configured to control traveling of the moving body toward the specific area, (Pg. 11 – [0063] – “Hereinafter, a method for controlling a lane change according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure will be described with reference to FIG. 3. FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating a method for controlling a lane change according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure” & See Also pg. 8 – [0002] – “The present disclosure relates to a technology of preventing a collision at the time of changing a lane, and more particularly, to an apparatus and a method for controlling a lane change considering priority that change the lane by considering the priority of a vehicle” (equates to wherein the instructions further cause the moving body control system to function as a control unit configured to control traveling of the moving body toward the specific area as the quote shows the lane changing being the specific area in which the vehicle is controlled into move within.) ) based on determined action of the moving body, as automated traveling of the moving body that does not necessitate a driver's traveling operation or automated traveling for assisting the driver's traveling operation. (Pg. 9 – [0021] – “Further, in the case in which the ego-vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, the collision judger 130 may check the attempt of the lane change by an autonomous driving value of an autonomous system. In this case, the collision judger 130, the priority determiner 140, and the lane change supporter 150 may be components of the autonomous system.” (equates to when performing the automated traveling of the moving body that does not necessitate the driver's traveling operation. As the quote shows the autonomous travelling of the vehicle in which the vehicle is not controlled by a driver and as such does not use the driver’s input during the autonomous control of the vehicle. ) ) Regarding Claim 17 Yoon-Nagashima teaches ( Yoon discloses the following limitations: ) The moving body control system according to claim 16, wherein the control unit controls at least one of a speed, (Pg. 9 – [0035] – “In this case, the lane change supporter 150 may also perform a control such as deceleration, or the like, as needed.” ) when performing the automated traveling of the moving body that does not necessitate the driver's traveling operation. (Pg. 9 – [0021] – “Further, in the case in which the ego-vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, the collision judger 130 may check the attempt of the lane change by an autonomous driving value of an autonomous system. In this case, the collision judger 130, the priority determiner 140, and the lane change supporter 150 may be components of the autonomous system.” (equates to as automated traveling of the moving body that does not necessitate a driver's traveling operation or automated traveling for assisting the driver's traveling operation as the quote shows the autonomous travelling of the vehicle in which the vehicle is not controlled by a driver and as such does not use the driver’s input during the autonomous control of the vehicle. ) ) Yoon fails to teach and steering of the moving body Nagashima teaches and steering of the moving body (Pg. 6 – [0049] – “In order to execute the action selected by the action setting unit 86, the vehicle control unit 90 outputs an acceleration / deceleration or steering instruction to the output system device group 16, and performs passing position change control. The driving force output device 40, the steering device 42, and the braking device 44 operate the vehicle 10 according to the instruction” ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon to include and steering of the moving body as this allows for another level of autonomous vehicle control to be implemented in the control sequence and thus allows for less driver intervention during the control of the vehicle being performed. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and steering of the moving body as this allows for another level of autonomous capabilities to be included in the system ensuring less burden on the user is implemented. Regarding Claim 18 Yoon teaches A control method of a moving body control system that determines action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route, Pg. 1 – Abstract – “There are provided an apparatus and a method for controlling a lane change considering priority” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 2B & See Also Pg. 10 – [0052] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. [0053] In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger.” ) the control method comprising: acquiring a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; ( Pg. 8 – [0009] – “According to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for controlling a lane change by at least one processor includes: checking whether or not there is an object vehicle having collision possibility that attempts to change a lane from a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which an ego-vehicle is being driven to a target road, before or during the lane change of the ego-vehicle; and determining a priority vehicle that first performs the lane change among the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle considering at least one of accessibility to the target road when there is the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point when the object vehicle or the ego-vehicle is positioned on a road to be joined.” (equates to when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; as the quote shows the acquiring the target lane and trajectory of the ego vehicle and the movement of the other vehicle in a target area in which a collision may happen. ) ) calculating a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, (Pg. 11 – [0068] – “If there is the vehicle of interest the collision judger 130 checks whether or not there is collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest (S340). In this case, the collision judger 130 may check the collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest using speeds of the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest and a longitudinal distance between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0071] – “Here, the priority determiner 140 may also determine the priority vehicle using at least one of accessibility to the target lane of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point” (equates to a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, as the quotes show a cooperation between the vehicles in terms of when a collision is detected to mitigate it and then be able to create a join point in which both vehicles may merge.) ) based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; (Pg. 11 – [0072] – “As described above, according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, since the collision danger of the two vehicles that change their lanes toward the same road may be prevented in advance, a safe driving of the driver may be supported” (equates to based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; as the trajectories of both vehicles changing lanes is considered to ensure safe driving takes place over the monitored region.) ) Yet Yoon fails to teach and determining the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. Nagashima teaches and determining the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. (Pg. 5 – [0044] – “The risk determination unit 84 determines the passing risk at the passing position 124 by comparing the information of the road width acquired in step S4 with the map M stored in the storage device 52. Further, the threshold value corresponding to the road type acquired in step S4 is specified, and it is determined whether the passing risk is larger than the threshold value. If the passing position 124 is other than the crossing 130, the first threshold Th1 is used to determine the magnitude of the passing risk” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0045] – “In step S6, when the passing risk is larger than the threshold (step S6: YES), the process proceeds to step S7.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0047] – “When the process proceeds from step S6 to step S7, passing position change control is executed. The action setting unit 86 selects the content of the traveling control to be performed by the vehicle control unit 90. The action setting unit 86 searches for another position 126 having a wide road width between the current position P10 of the host vehicle 10 and the position P20 of the oncoming vehicle 100a, and causes the target position 10 to perform the passing by another position 126. Choose For example, as shown in FIG. 7, when the separate position 126 is closer to the host vehicle 10 than the passing position 124, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for decelerating the host vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 8, when the own vehicle 10 reaches the other position 126 or approaches to a predetermined distance of the other position 126, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for stopping the own vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10” (equates to and determining the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. as the indication of the degree increasing is shown by the passing to s6 to s7 wherein the separation degree between the vehicles is big enough to elicit a traveling control mode to be initiated by s7.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon to include and determining the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area as this allows for a specific measure between the cooperation between the ego and object vehicle in which a degree specifically changes in which then a mode of control is only then given once the determination of a collision is minimized. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and determining the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area as these limitations allow for a changing degree in which a value of cooperation can be modulated and understood in a variety of vehicle scenarios and thus a traveling mode given to a host vehicle to ensure a safe passage . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon-Nagashima as previously mentioned and in view of Shiping (CN 113650710 A) Regarding Claim 7 Yoon-Nagashima teaches The moving body control system according to claim 6, as previously mapped above. Yet Yoon fails to teach Yet Both fail to teach wherein, for either the first cost or the second cost, the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, based on the comfort, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases. Nagashima teaches wherein, for either the first cost or the second cost, Pg. 6 – [0047] – “As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10” ( equates to first cost as the legal speed limit is ensured to attain passing the vehicle in question. )) based on the comfort, (Pg. 7 – [0057] – “According to the above configuration, since the host vehicle 10 is controlled such that the passing position 124 becomes the other position 126 according to the passing risk at the passing position 124, the passing risk between the own vehicle 10 and the oncoming vehicle 100a does not occur Or it can be done at a position where the passing risk is small. Therefore, it is possible to smoothly pass the host vehicle 10 and the oncoming vehicle 100a” (equates to based on the comfort as the quote shows the passing risk calculated for a smooth pass between the host and oncoming vehicle.) ) Yet Both fail to teach the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases. Shiping teaches the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases. (Pg. 11 – “so that it is possible to effectively judge whether the motorcycle has a risk of being laterally collided by monitoring the lateral acceleration to calculate the lateral collision risk coefficient” & See Also Pg. 11 – “calculating to obtain a fourth coefficient according to the pitch angle, the longitudinal acceleration and the front object distance/the rear object distance/the lateral object distance” & See Also Pg. 11 – “wherein KdIs an uphill front object distance coefficient obtained according to the longitudinal acceleration of the motorcycle when going uphill and the front object distance, KuIn order to obtain a distance coefficient of an object in front of a downhill according to a longitudinal acceleration of the motorcycle on the downhill and a distance of the object in front, delta theta is a pitch angle, and when the motorcycle is judged to be on the uphill according to the pitch angle, a safety time T is calculated by using a formula (1)f The formula (2) is used to calculate the safety time T when going downhill After calculating the safety time TfThen according to the safety time Tf Obtaining a front distance relation table according to the vehicle speed” & See Also Pg. 11 – “and a distance risk coefficient is obtained by multiplying the fourth coefficient by the first coefficient after the fourth coefficient is obtained;” & See Also Pg. 11 – “calculating to obtain a first coefficient according to the vehicle speed and the power control data;” (equates to the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases as the first quote shows the cooperation degree decreasing as the lateral acceleration of the vehicle increases, second quote showing the attaining of the fourth coefficient, the third quote showing the fourth coefficient increases as the distance between the vehicles is minimized meaning the cooperation degree is decreasing and the last quote showing the cost (first coefficient) being multiplied by the fourth coefficient to determine the risk distance. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon-Nagashima to include the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases as this allows for a sharp increase in the costs associated with the control of the host vehicle considering the cooperation degree between the host and object vehicle in which the coefficient used specifically allows for alternative actions to be taken to mitigate risky driving behavior. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the determination unit multiplies a cost calculated, by a coefficient having a value that increases as the cooperation degree decreases as this limitation allows for a simple formulation to be implemented to mitigate risky driving behavior while prioritizing passenger comfort . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon-Nagashima- Shiping as previously mentioned and in view of Ota (DE 112016004312 T5) Regarding Claim 8 Yoon-Nagashima-Shiping teaches The moving body control system according to claim 7, as previously mapped above. Yet Both fail to teach wherein the coefficient is based on a value obtained by applying a sigmoid function to the cooperation degree. Ota teaches wherein the coefficient is based on a value obtained by applying a sigmoid function to the cooperation degree. (Pg. 8 – “information about the state of the own vehicle as a previous vehicle state based on that of the sensor group 4 obtained sensor information. The information of the state of the own vehicle may include the information, the speed Vo of the own vehicle, the acceleration information, the distance D between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle and the relative speed Vr” & See Also Pg. 8 – “In step T3, the index calculation part calculates 11 the risk index as the previous risk index based on the information of the state of the own vehicle at time t1.” & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The index calculating part calculates the risk index based on the vehicle state acquired by the state obtaining part.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [second embodiment] – “In step T4, the index transformation part leads 12 perform the correction operation to calculate the calculated past risk index using the threshold and the value of the function. The transformation operation is similar to the correction operation in step S3 of the first embodiment, so that the description is omitted. The function may use the cumulative distribution function, such as the sigmoid function” (equates to wherein the coefficient is based on a value obtained by applying a sigmoid function to the cooperation degree. As the first quote shows the vehicle state information being in relation to a distance to another vehicle and thus a cooperation degree is attained wherein the risk index is calculated based on the vehicle state information as shown in the second quote and the last quote showing the sigmoid function used when plugging in the risk index containing the cooperation degree ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon-Nagashima- to include wherein the coefficient is based on a value obtained by applying a sigmoid function to the cooperation degree as this allows for an inflection point to be easily calculated wherein the cooperation degree can easily be determined about whether or not he maneuver should take place. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the coefficient is based on a value obtained by applying a sigmoid function to the cooperation degree as this allows for different passing modes to be suppressed with the cooperation degree is minimized . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon-Nagashima as previously mentioned and in view of Ota (DE 112016004312 T5) Regarding Claim 19 Yoon teaches that stores a program for causing a computer to function as each unit of a moving body control system, ( Pg. 10 – [0038] – “The memory may store a program, computer-readable code, or software. The above operations may be implemented with execution of the store program, computer-readable code, or software by the processor” ) the moving body control system determining action of a moving body for passing through a specific area on a movement route, Pg. 1 – Abstract – “There are provided an apparatus and a method for controlling a lane change considering priority” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 2B & See Also Pg. 10 – [0052] – “Referring to FIG. 2B, the vehicle A and the vehicle B determine the lane change and start the lane change at the same point of time t. [0053] In addition, the collision judger 130 recognizes that the two vehicles simultaneously perform the lane change at a point of time (t+k) at which the lane change is being performed, and judges that there is a mutual collision danger.” ) the moving body control system comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; ( Pg. 8 – [0009] – “According to another exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a method for controlling a lane change by at least one processor includes: checking whether or not there is an object vehicle having collision possibility that attempts to change a lane from a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which an ego-vehicle is being driven to a target road, before or during the lane change of the ego-vehicle; and determining a priority vehicle that first performs the lane change among the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle considering at least one of accessibility to the target road when there is the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point when the object vehicle or the ego-vehicle is positioned on a road to be joined.” (equates to when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors, cause the moving body control system to function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a moving situation of the moving body and a moving situation of a cooperation partner; as the quote shows the acquiring the target lane and trajectory of the ego vehicle and the movement of the other vehicle in a target area in which a collision may happen. ) ) a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, (Pg. 11 – [0068] – “If there is the vehicle of interest the collision judger 130 checks whether or not there is collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest (S340). In this case, the collision judger 130 may check the collision possibility between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest using speeds of the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest and a longitudinal distance between the ego-vehicle and the vehicle of interest” & See Also Pg. 11 – [0071] – “Here, the priority determiner 140 may also determine the priority vehicle using at least one of accessibility to the target lane of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point” (equates to a calculation unit configured to calculate a cooperation degree indicating a degree that the moving body passes through the specific area in cooperation with the cooperation partner, as the quotes show a cooperation between the vehicles in terms of when a collision is detected to mitigate it and then be able to create a join point in which both vehicles may merge.) ) based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; (Pg. 11 – [0072] – “As described above, according to the exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, since the collision danger of the two vehicles that change their lanes toward the same road may be prevented in advance, a safe driving of the driver may be supported” (equates to based on the moving situation of the moving body and the moving situation of the cooperation partner; as the trajectories of both vehicles changing lanes is considered to ensure safe driving takes place over the monitored region.) ) Yet Yoon fails to teach A non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. Nagashima teaches and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. (Pg. 5 – [0044] – “The risk determination unit 84 determines the passing risk at the passing position 124 by comparing the information of the road width acquired in step S4 with the map M stored in the storage device 52. Further, the threshold value corresponding to the road type acquired in step S4 is specified, and it is determined whether the passing risk is larger than the threshold value. If the passing position 124 is other than the crossing 130, the first threshold Th1 is used to determine the magnitude of the passing risk” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0045] – “In step S6, when the passing risk is larger than the threshold (step S6: YES), the process proceeds to step S7.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0047] – “When the process proceeds from step S6 to step S7, passing position change control is executed. The action setting unit 86 selects the content of the traveling control to be performed by the vehicle control unit 90. The action setting unit 86 searches for another position 126 having a wide road width between the current position P10 of the host vehicle 10 and the position P20 of the oncoming vehicle 100a, and causes the target position 10 to perform the passing by another position 126. Choose For example, as shown in FIG. 7, when the separate position 126 is closer to the host vehicle 10 than the passing position 124, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for decelerating the host vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 8, when the own vehicle 10 reaches the other position 126 or approaches to a predetermined distance of the other position 126, the behavior setting unit 86 selects traveling control for stopping the own vehicle 10. As shown in FIG. 9, the other position 126 is on the side of the oncoming vehicle 100a with respect to the passing position 124, and the vehicle 10 travels at a vehicle speed within the legal speed and is at the other position 126 before the oncoming vehicle 100a. If it can be reached, the action setting unit 86 selects traveling control for accelerating the vehicle 10” (equates to and a determination unit configured to determine the action of the moving body toward the specific area to increase the cooperation degree, wherein the cooperation degree increases, as one of the moving body and the cooperation partner exits from the specific area and then the other one enters the specific area. as the indication of the degree increasing is shown by the passing to s6 to s7 wherein the separation degree between the vehicles is big enough to elicit a traveling control mode to be initiated by s7.) ) Yet both fail to teach A non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Ota teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium. (Pg. 2 – “The storage part 3 may be provided by a non-transitory or nonvolatile memory storage medium”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yoon-Nagashima to include A non-transitory computer readable storage medium. As this allows for another matter of eligible subject matter to be patented. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as this allows for a broader scope of patentable subject matter to be claimed and allow for a method of manufacture to be patented alongside the system and method aforementioned . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP4980076B2 - A riskiness reference value Riskm is corrected and calculated for each target object according the a road surface friction coefficient based on a vehicle-to-target time and a collision allowance time Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST. 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. /R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667 4/15/26 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 2 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 3 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 4 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 5 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 6 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 7 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 8 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 9 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 10 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 11 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 12 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 13 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 14 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 15 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 16 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 17 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 18 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 19 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 20 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 21 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 22 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 23 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 24 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 25 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 26 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 27 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 28 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 29 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 30 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 31 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 32 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 33 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 34 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 35 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 36 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 37 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 38 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/061,414 Page 39 Art Unit: 3667
