DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 06/17/2025 and 12/19/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The preliminarily amended list of claims 1-10 is pending in this application. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 06/17/2025:
Claim(s) 1-10 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: PROCESSING APPARATUS AND PROCESSING METHOD FOR DETERMINING A TARGET TRAJECTORY TO AVOID COLLISIONS.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “the processing apparatus configured to acquire trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory” in claim 1.
Claim limitations: “the processing apparatus configured to acquire trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “apparatus” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “processing apparatus” as follows: “The processing apparatus 18 includes a central processing unit (CPU) which is an arithmetic processing unit, a read-only memory (ROM) which is a memory element storing programs and arithmetic parameters used by the CPU, and a random access memory (RAM) which is a memory element temporarily storing parameters that change appropriately in the execution of the CPU. For example, one processing apparatus 18 may be provided, or a plurality of processing apparatuses 18 may be provided” in at least ¶: 0026 of the Applicant’s specification, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “processing apparatus” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to due to the following minor informalities.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites: “further configured to determine a travel trajectory;” which is a minor antecedent basis issue, as claim 1, from which claim 2 depends already recites “a travel trajectory.” Therefore, the cited claim limitation should be amended to instead recite: “further configured to determine the travel trajectory.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite using a processing apparatus to perform the following method: 1) acquiring trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory; 2) retrieving stored standard travel trajectory information; and 3) determining the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information.
The limitations of: 1) acquiring trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory; 2) retrieving stored standard travel trajectory information; and 3) determining the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processing apparatus, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the using a processing apparatus language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: acquiring a standard travel trajectory and determining whether this standard travel trajectory should be used to for a host vehicle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements – using a processing apparatus to perform the following method: 1) acquiring trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory; 2) retrieving stored standard travel trajectory information; and 3) determining the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information. The processing apparatus is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does not/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a processing apparatus to perform the following method: 1) acquiring trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory; 2) retrieving stored standard travel trajectory information; and 3) determining the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component applied to a vehicle to perform an abstract methodology, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 § U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1 and 10.
Examiner’s Note: With respect to claim 8, the limitation reciting” “further comprising a control unit (18c) configured to control the host vehicle (10) such that the host vehicle (10) travels along the target travel trajectory without operation by a driver of the host vehicle (10),” which is an operation that cannot be performed in the human mind, does not comprise positive recitation of controlling the host vehicle due to use of the “configured to” type language. Based on this assessment, the Examiner asserts that this limitation from claim 8 as currently presented does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In order to overcome the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 § U.S.C. 101, the Examiner suggests, amending independent claims 1 and 10 to positively recite automated control of the vehicle along the determined target trajectory without using the “configured to” language currently recited in 8. For example, adding an additional limitation to claims 1 and 10 reciting: “further comprising a control unit (18c), wherein the control unit controls the host vehicle (10) such that the host vehicle (10) travels along the target travel trajectory without operation by a driver of the host vehicle (10),” would overcome the outstanding rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 § U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giovanardi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0281456 A1) referenced as Giovanardi moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Giovanardi discloses:
“A processing apparatus (18) for determining a target travel trajectory of a host vehicle (10), the processing apparatus configured to acquire trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi discloses a vehicle that uses one or more microprocessors(¶: 0307 - "using one or more microprocessors") to acquire an aggregate path(denoted 1414 in Fig. 22); Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0307, 0398-0402];
“the standard travel trajectory being a travel trajectory that is generated based on information on a travel result of a plurality of vehicles and is typical in a traffic lane” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the previously recited aggregate path is created by assessing a plurality of vehicle trajectories of other vehicles that have traversed the current traveling lane(denoted 1408, 1410 and 1412 in Fig. 22;) and filtering out any determined outlier trajectories to determine the final aggregate path. In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed aggregate path as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "standard travel trajectory;" Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0398-0402];
“and configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the system compares the current travel path of the vehicle(denoted 1502 in Fig. 23) to calculated aggregate path from the previous step(denoted 1414 in Fig. 23) to determine a corrective path(denoted 1504 in Fig. 23) to control the vehicle along. In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed corrective path as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "target travel trajectory;" Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0398-0402].
With respect to claim 2, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 1, further configured to determine a travel trajectory (51, 61) that follows the standard travel trajectory as the target travel trajectory” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the previously recited corrective path approximates the aggregate path in order to derive the control sequence to control the vehicle allowing the trajectory indicative of the approximated aggregate path; Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0398-0402].
With respect to claim 3, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 2, further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on a positional relationship between a lane boundary (LB 1), which is a boundary between a travel lane (L1) of the host vehicle (10) and an adjacent lane (L2) adjacent to the travel lane (L1), and the standard travel trajectory” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that when determining a corrective trajectory to control the vehicle according to in order to navigate a feature(denoted 516 in Fig. 8-10) present in a current traveling lane(denoted 506 in Fig. 8-10). The current traveling lane is separated from an adjacent traveling lane(denoted 508 in Fig. 8-10) separated by a lane marking(denoted by the dashed line in Fig. 8-10); Fig. 8-11; ¶: 0353-0357].
With respect to claim 4, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 3, further configured to determine the target travel trajectory such that the host vehicle (10) does not go beyond the lane boundary (LB 1) when the host vehicle (10) travels along the target travel trajectory” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the system may determine a target trajectory such trajectory 620 in Fig. 9, in which the vehicle is controlled along a trajectory that maintains its position with respect to the boundaries of currently traveling lane(denoted 506 in Fig. 8-10) without exiting the current traveling lane; Fig. 8-11; ¶: 0349, 0353-0357].
With respect to claim 7, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the host vehicle (10) is mounted with a sensor (16) configured to detect road surface information, and further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on a detection result of the sensor (16) in addition to the trajectory information” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that system obtains road surface information using one or more sensors of the vehicle to localize the vehicle. The previously recited corrective path derivation is based off of the localization performed during these steps(denoted 1852 and 1854 in Fig. 21); Fig. 21; ¶: 0395].
With respect to claim 8, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit (18c) configured to control the host vehicle (10) such that the host vehicle (10) travels along the target travel trajectory without operation by a driver of the host vehicle (10)” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that controlling the vehicle along the determined corrective path(denoted 1504 in Fig. 23) is performed automatically as follows: "This may allow the vehicle 1402 to correct for lane drift, or to avoid common obstacles such as the pothole 1420, without further input from the driver;" Fig. 23; ¶: 0402; See also: Fig. 22; ¶: 0398-0401].
With respect to claim 9, Giovanardi discloses: “The processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit (18c) configured to perform notification control for notifying a driver of the host vehicle (10) of the target travel trajectory” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the system notifies the driver of the vehicle when the vehicle reaches a position in which control along a corrective path(denoted 2410 in Fig. 31) will occur; Fig. 31; ¶: 0429, 0430].
With respect to claim 10, Giovanardi discloses:
“A processing method for determining a target travel trajectory of a host vehicle (10), the method comprising: acquiring, via a processing apparatus (18)” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi discloses a vehicle that uses one or more microprocessors(¶: 0307 - "using one or more microprocessors") to acquire an aggregate path(denoted 1414 in Fig. 22); Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0307, 0398-0402];
“trajectory information indicating a standard travel trajectory being a travel trajectory that is generated based on information on a travel result of a plurality of vehicles and is typical in a traffic lane” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the previously recited aggregate path is created by assessing a plurality of vehicle trajectories of other vehicles that have traversed the current traveling lane(denoted 1408, 1410 and 1412 in Fig. 22;) and filtering out any determined outlier trajectories to determine the final aggregate path. In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed aggregate path as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "standard travel trajectory;" Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0398-0402];
“and determining, via the processing apparatus (18), the target travel trajectory based on the trajectory information” [Giovanardi; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Giovanardi further discloses that the system compares the current travel path of the vehicle(denoted 1502 in Fig. 23) to calculated aggregate path from the previous step(denoted 1414 in Fig. 23) to determine a corrective path(denoted 1504 in Fig. 23) to control the vehicle along. In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed corrective path as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "target travel trajectory;" Fig. 22, 23; ¶: 0398-0402].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovanardi in view of MIYAMOTO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0024059 A1) referenced as Miyamoto moving forward.
With respect to claim 5, Giovanardi does not specifically state: “further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on the positional relationship when a possibility of collision between the host vehicle (10) and another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane (L2) exceeds a criterion, and determine the target travel trajectory not based on the positional relationship when the possibility of collision is lower than the criterion.”
Miyamoto, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for controlling vehicles to avoid colliding with objects, teaches: “further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on the positional relationship when a possibility of collision between the host vehicle (10) and another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane (L2) exceeds a criterion, and determine the target travel trajectory not based on the positional relationship when the possibility of collision is lower than the criterion” [Miyamoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Miyamoto teaches a system/method for controlling an autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle in the current traveling lane based determinations with regards to the presence of additional vehicles in the adjacent lanes. In particular, Miyamoto teaches that if a determined trajectory involves steering into another lane to avoid an obstacle, the system must further determine if this steering operation would result in a collision with another vehicle/object, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a possibility of collision between the host vehicle (10) and another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane (L2)." Miyamoto further teaches that if no vehicle in the adjacent areas is present, then steering outside the lane is permitted, for example using the trajectories depicted in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. Miyamoto further teaches that if a target trajectory involves steering into an adjacent lane, which would lead to a collision, then the target steering operation is not performed in the proposed direction(see for example the crossed out trajectory in Fig. 12 that would have resulted in a collision with disclosed second vehicle, V2; Fig. 6, 10-12; ¶: 0140, 0141, 0152-0166].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a vehicle to avoid an object in its current traveling lane as disclosed by Giovanardi to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether a trajectory of a vehicle exiting the current travel lane will cause a second collision with another vehicle in an adjacent lane as taught by Miyamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a vehicle to avoid an object in its current traveling lane that is more robust in its ability to assure safety of a vehicle as well as other surrounding vehicles by ensuring that and collision avoidance maneuvers will secondary collisions with the surrounding vehicles/objects [Miyamoto; ¶: 0014, 0032, 0128, 0167, 0168].
With respect to claim 6, Giovanardi does not specifically state: “further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on the positional relationship when it is determined that an obstacle is present at the lane boundary (LB 1), and determine the target travel trajectory not based on the positional relationship when it is determined that no obstacle is present at the lane boundary (LB 1).”
Miyamoto teaches: “further configured to determine the target travel trajectory based on the positional relationship when it is determined that an obstacle is present at the lane boundary (LB 1), and determine the target travel trajectory not based on the positional relationship when it is determined that no obstacle is present at the lane boundary (LB 1)” [Miyamoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Miyamoto teaches a system/method for controlling an autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle in the current traveling lane based determinations with regards to the presence of additional obstacles in the adjacent traveling lanes. In particular, Miyamoto teaches that another vehicle (denoted V2 in Fig. 12) is present at the road boundary(denoted WL in Fig 12) that the proposed trajectory should not steer the vehicle into lane LL in Fig. 12. When no obstacle is approaching the vehicle from the adjacent area(i.e. at the road boundary WL), that steering into the adjacent lane is possible; Fig. 6, 10-12; ¶: 0140, 0141, 0152-0166].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a vehicle to avoid an object in its current traveling lane as disclosed by Giovanardi to incorporate the teachings regarding determining whether a trajectory of a vehicle exiting the current travel lane will cause a second collision with another vehicle in an adjacent lane as taught by Miyamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a vehicle to avoid an object in its current traveling lane that is more robust in its ability to assure safety of a vehicle as well as other surrounding vehicles by ensuring that and collision avoidance maneuvers will secondary collisions with the surrounding vehicles/objects [Miyamoto; ¶: 0014, 0032, 0128, 0167, 0168].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Takeda (United States Patent Publication 2017/0259819 A1) discloses: A vehicle control system includes: a detection section that detects a presence and state of any nearby vehicles traveling in the vicinity of a vehicle; a speed generation section that generates a target speed of the vehicle based on a state of a benchmark vehicle from out of the nearby vehicles whose presence and state have been detected by the detection section, the benchmark vehicle being closest to the vehicle in a direction of progress from out of a first vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle in a current lane in which the vehicle is traveling or a second vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle in an adjacent lane adjacent to the current lane; and a travel control section that automatically controls at least acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle based on the target speed generated by the speed generation section.
MAURA (United States Patent Publication 2018/0345963 A1) discloses: Autonomous driving assistance systems, methods, and programs acquire a planned travel route along which a host vehicle plans to travel and acquire map information including lane information about a road that is included in the planned travel route. The systems, methods, and programs acquire, from outside the host vehicle, obstacle information that includes a location of an obstacle on the road and that has been acquired by another vehicle that travels along the planned travel route ahead of the host vehicle, and generate, as assistance information that is used to perform autonomous driving assistance in the host vehicle that travels along the planned travel route, a travel trajectory candidate for the host vehicle based on the obstacle information and the lane information about the planned travel route.
Zhang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0235516 A1) discloses: According to some embodiments, a system calculates a first trajectory based on a map and a route information. The system performs a path optimization based on the first trajectory, traffic rules, and an obstacle information describing obstacles perceived by the ADV. The path optimization is performed by performing a spline curve based path optimization on the first trajectory, determining whether a result of the spline curve based path optimization satisfies a first predetermined condition, performing a finite element based path optimization on the first trajectory in response to determining that the result of the spline curve based path optimization does not satisfy the first predetermined condition, performing a speed optimization based on a result of the path optimization, and generating a second trajectory based on the path optimization and the speed optimization to control the ADV.
MIN (United States Patent Publication 2020/0079364 A1) discloses: A vehicle driving control apparatus and a vehicle driving control method are provided for controlling the driving of the vehicle to follow a return path corresponding to a position of an obstacle in a blind spot to avoid a collision with the obstacle located in the blind spot when the vehicle, which is changing lanes or leaving a lane, returns to its original driving lane.
Yoshida et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0317196 A1) discloses: A vehicle control system includes a trajectory generation unit configured to generate a target trajectory of a vehicle, a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the vehicle is about to stop on the basis of the target trajectory generated by the trajectory generation unit, and a post-stop target trajectory generation unit configured to generate a post-stop target trajectory after the vehicle stops on the basis of the target trajectory before the vehicle stops in a case where it is determined that the vehicle is about to stop by the determination unit.
Kim et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0013737 A1) discloses: An apparatus includes at least one camera configured to capture an image of a traffic lane in front of a vehicle. The apparatus also includes a vehicle behavior prediction controller configured to determine lane boundaries and road curvature for a segment of a traffic lane occupied by the vehicle from the captured image and prior captured images; determine lateral distances of the vehicle from the lane boundaries and a rate of departure of the vehicle from the occupied traffic lane that is accurate for the determined road curvature; determine a time to line crossing for the vehicle from the lateral distances and the rate of departure; and activate a lane departure warning indicator based on the determined time to line crossing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights