DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
2. With regard to claim 3, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
3a. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (us 2017/0269602), and further in view of Takebayashi (US 2024/0227820).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 20, Nakamura discloses a mobile body with an avoidance path calculation apparatus and method (collision avoidance route calculation and autonomous control for a mobile body; Nakamura at abstract), comprising:
At least one memory storing instructions (travel control system with a plurality of memories; Nakamura at 0052).
At least one processor (CPU; Nakamura at 0052) configured to execute the instructions to:
Acquire stopped vehicle information regarding a stop situation of a stopped vehicle stopped in front of a mobile body capable of automated driving (sensing the preceding vehicle is stationary; Nakamura at 0033, 0035), the stopped vehicle information including information regarding a size of the stopped vehicle (target object area in proportion to ascertained target object size; Nakamura at 0062, 0063, 0127, Fig. 2), a position of the stopped vehicle in a traveling lane in which the mobile body is traveling (target preceding vehicle position ascertained relative to host vehicle in travel lane; Nakamura at 0030, 0033, 0034) and a stop state of the stopped vehicle (stationary state obtained via determined relative velocity and acceleration between the host vehicle and preceding vehicle; Nakamura at 0033, 0056)
Generate an avoidance path for the mobile body to travel while avoiding the stopped vehicle based on the stopped vehicle information (target route created to avoid the stopped vehicle based on sensed data; Nakamura at abstract, 0041, 0042).
Set the avoidance path in the mobile body (control autonomous vehicle according to target route; Nakamura at 0042).
While the object area of avoidance of Nakamura is adjusted to the size of the target object (e.g. vehicle is small, medium, large, etc. Nakamura at 0031, 0127) it cannot be ascertained from the disclosure of Nakamura if it is implicit that the length and width of the preceding vehicle is used.
Takebayashi, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the length and width of the preceding vehicle are acquired for collision avoidance purposes (Takebayashi at 0002, 0059, 0061).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the collision avoidance of Nakamura with the detection of specific parameter acquisition of Takebayashi. Doing so would provide a more precise formulation of collision avoidance strategy that accounts for the exact dimensions of the preceding vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the information acquisition unit acquires a vehicle type of the stopped vehicle (Nakamura at 0031). The combination teaches the information regarding the width and the length of the stopped vehicle (Takebayashi at 0059, 0061).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further comprising an image analysis unit configured to analyze image data of an area in front of the mobile body and to generate the stopped vehicle information (camera acquires stopped preceding vehicle; Nakamura at 0027).
3b. Claims 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Takebayashi, as combined above, and further in view of Minemura (US 2015/0298692).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Nakamura as cited above discloses acquiring the position of the stationary preceding vehicle (Nakamura at 0030, 0033, 0034, 0056). The combination is silent as to information indicating whether the stopped vehicle is close to a left line that defines the traveling lane and information indicating whether the stopped vehicle is close to a right line that defines the traveling lane.
Minemura, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the stationary preceding vehicle proximity to the lane lines of the traveling lane of the host vehicle (Minemura at abstract, 0081).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the combination with the collision avoidance contingency of Minemura. Doing so would provide greater context for a potential avoidance path in a situation the stopped preceding vehicle is protruding into the lane of travel.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the avoidance path calculation unit generates the avoidance path in such a manner as to cause the mobile body to avoid the stopped vehicle from a right side of the stopped vehicle in a case where the information indicating that the stopped vehicle is close to the left line is acquired as the position of the stopped vehicle, and generate generates the avoidance path in such a manner as to cause the mobile body to avoid the stopped vehicle from a left side of the stopped vehicle in a case where the information indicating that the stopped vehicle is close to the right line is acquired as the position of the stopped vehicle (collision avoidance procedures as a function stopped preceding vehicle position into the lane of travel; Minemura at 0081).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the combination teaches wherein the stopped vehicle information further includes a distance indicating any amount of protrusion from the left line or the right line into the traveling lane, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the avoidance path calculation unit determines an amount of avoidance for avoiding the stopped vehicle in accordance with the distance included in the stopped vehicle information (collision avoidance procedures as a function stopped preceding vehicle position into the lane of travel; Minemura at 0005, 0081).
Claim Objections
4. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights