CTNF 19/224,353 CTNF 96270 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-19 received on 05/30/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-19 are pending for examination. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2025 and 07/03/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 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. Claim Objections Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: than the margin when the margin when the obstacle should read than the margin when the margin when the obstacle . 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the crossing should read the grade crossing . Appropriate correction is required. 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) are: Claims 1-2: obstacle detecting unit (generic placeholder) detects (function) Claims 1-8: clearance calculating unit (generic placeholder) identifies (function) Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 15-17: passing decision unit (generic placeholder) determines (function) Claims 2, 10, 13, 15 and 18: traveling control unit (generic placeholder) controls (function) Claims 12 and 17: driving switching unit (generic placeholder) assigns (function) Claims 13-14 and 18-19: a passage completion determining unit (generic placeholder) determines (function) Claims 2 and 9: a vehicle speed determining unit (generic placeholder) determines (function) Claim 2: a traveling length identifying unit (generic placeholder) identifies (function) Claims 14 and 19: a notifying unit (generic placeholder) performs notification (function) Claims 11 and 16: an alternative course identifying unit (generic placeholder) identifies (function) Claims 13 and 18: an empty space identifying unit (generic placeholder) identifies (function) Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Regarding obstacle detecting unit, clearance calculating unit, passing decision unit, traveling control unit, driving switching unit, passage completion determining unit, vehicle speed determining unit, traveling length identifying unit , notifying unit, alternative course identifying unit and empty space identifying unit, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of CPU and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 6 and FIG. 15 and a portion of pg 6-7 lines 35-6 of the specification reproduced below: The vehicle control apparatus 10 is configured by an ECU that includes a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a memory 12, and a communication unit 13. The CPU 11, the memory 12, and the communication unit 13 are all connected to a bus 14 and capable of communicating with one another. The CPU l 1 functions as an obstacle detecting unit 1 10, a clearance calculating unit 111, a passable/not-passable determining unit (corresponding to a passing decision unit) 112, a traveling control unit 113, and a driving switching unit 114 by running a control program that is stored in the memory 12 in advance. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-9, 14 and 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 1-19 are directed to an apparatus , i.e. a machine. Therefore, claims 1-19 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04) 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 (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites: 1. A vehicle control apparatus that is mounted in a vehicle and controls the vehicle, the vehicle control apparatus comprising: an obstacle detecting unit that detects an obstacle that is present inside a grade crossing that intersects a traveling course of the vehicle, using a detection result of a sensor that is mounted in the vehicle ; a clearance calculating unit that identifies a position and size of the obstacle using a detection result of the obstacle detecting unit, and calculates a clearance in a direction that intersects the traveling course when the vehicle crosses the grade crossing, using the identified position and size of the obstacle ; and a passing decision unit that determines whether the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing based on the calculated clearance , wherein: the sensor detects at least one of a size, position, speed, and acceleration of the obstacle; the clearance calculating unit calculates the clearance when the vehicle passes through the grade crossing in time series, using a value detected by the sensor ; and the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing when the clearance is equal to or greater than a size that is prescribed in advance over an overall period during which the vehicle passes through the grade crossing . The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim limitations of detects an obstacle, identifies a position and size of the obstacle, determines whether the vehicle is able to pass and calculates the clearance is a mental process of judgement based on observation, as these are equivalent to a person determining whether a vehicle can safely pass a passage without colliding with another object. Accordingly, claims 1-19 recite at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04) 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”): 1. A vehicle control apparatus that is mounted in a vehicle and controls the vehicle, the vehicle control apparatus comprising : an obstacle detecting unit that detects an obstacle that is present inside a grade crossing that intersects a traveling course of the vehicle, using a detection result of a sensor that is mounted in the vehicle ; a clearance calculating unit that identifies a position and size of the obstacle using a detection result of the obstacle detecting unit, and calculates a clearance in a direction that intersects the traveling course when the vehicle crosses the grade crossing, using the identified position and size of the obstacle ; and a passing decision unit that determines whether the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing based on the calculated clearance , wherein: the sensor detects at least one of a size, position, speed, and acceleration of the obstacle ; the clearance calculating unit calculates the clearance when the vehicle passes through the grade crossing in time series, using a value detected by the sensor ; and the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing when the clearance is equal to or greater than a size that is prescribed in advance over an overall period during which the vehicle passes through the grade crossing . For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “ detects at least one of a size, position, speed, and acceleration of the obstacle ”, the examiner submits that this limitation is directed to a form of an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically mere data gathering, that merely use a sensor to perform the process. Furthermore, sensor, units and implementation on a processing system are recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its intended function, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis: Step 2B (MPEP § 2106.05) Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to perform the claimed functions of detecting, identifying, determining and calculating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims recite additional conditions to be performed, such as determining how slowly to pass by an object and whether there is sufficient time to pass the object, determining whether to pass when an opposing vehicle is present, selecting a safety margin around the object based on the type, and determining boundaries of a passable area. Dependent claim 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above. Dependent claims 14 and 19 recite an additional claim limitation of performs notification when passage through the grade crossing is determined to not be able to be completed which is directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In contrast to claim 1 which generally recites a generic computer performing abstract ideas, dependent claims 10-13 and 15-18 recites stops the vehicle, presents the alternative course, assigns control of at least a portion of the operation functions to the driver and moves the vehicle to the empty space , thus applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-9, 14 and 19 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1) . Ostafew and Ishikawa are cited in the IDS received on 07/03/2025. Regarding claim 1, Ostafew teaches a vehicle control apparatus that is mounted in a vehicle and controls the vehicle (FIG. 1; para. [0004]: “disclosed implementations is a method for object avoidance by an autonomous vehicle (AV). The apparatus includes a memory and a processor”) , the vehicle control apparatus comprising: an obstacle detecting unit (FIG. 1; para. [0034]: “a controller 114”) that detects an obstacle that is present inside a grade crossing road that intersects a traveling course of the vehicle, using a detection result of a sensor that is mounted in the vehicle (FIG. 8, 10-12; para. [0133]: “At operation 810, the process 800 identifies nearby objects to the AV. […]. For example, the nearby objects can be objects within a predetermined distance from the AV, objects within a predicted arrival time of the AV , […] the operation 810 identifies dots (i.e., boundary points) and/or groups of dots representing objects, as described with respect to FIGS. 10-12”) ; a clearance calculating unit that identifies a position and size of the obstacle using a detection result of the obstacle detecting unit, and calculates a clearance in a direction that intersects the traveling course when the vehicle crosses the grade crossing, using the identified position and size of the obstacle (FIG. 8-9, 11-12; para. [0136]: “At operation 830, the process 800 adjusts the drivable area for static objects. That is, the process 800 removes (e.g., cuts out, etc.) from the drivable area those portions of the drivable area where static objects are located . This is so because the AV is to be controlled to navigate (e.g., drive) around the static objects. A view 940 of FIG. 9 illustrates cutting out a portion of the drivable area . To avoid the static vehicle 914, the process 800 cuts out a cutout 942 of the drivable area 932. The size of the cut out area can be determined based on an estimate of the size of the static object . The size of the cut out area can include a clearance area so that the AV does not drive too close to the static object”; para. [0171]: “The trajectory planner of the AV 1202 may determine that a distance 1212 is such that the AV 1202 can pass through the gap corresponding to the distance 1212”, wherein the adjusted drivable area and gap indicates a clearance in a direction that intersects the traveling course ) ; and a passing decision unit that determines whether the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing road based on the calculated clearance (FIG. 13 1320_4; para. [0178]: “At operation 1320_4, the process 1300 identifies the passable gaps. That is the process 1300 identifies the number of passable gaps. For example, given the right and left boundaries of the bin 1116 of FIG. 11, the process 1300 determines whether the AV 1102 can pass though the gap defined by the distance 1120. If so, then one gap is identified. Similarly, the process 1300 determines whether the AV 1202 can pass through the gap defined by the distance 1212 of FIG. 12.”; para. [0147]: “that it is not safe for the AV 912 to pass the dynamic vehicle 916, because, for example, no safe gap exists between the edge of the dynamic vehicle 916 and the boundaries of the adjusted drivable area.”; para. [0171]: “The trajectory planner of the AV 1202 may determine that a distance 1212 is such that the AV 1202 can pass through the gap corresponding to the distance 1212”) , wherein: the sensor detects at least one of a size, position, speed, and acceleration of the obstacle (para. [0047]: “one or more sensors detect road geometry and obstacles, such as fixed obstacles, vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians”; para. [0079]: “The world model module 402 can receive sensor information […] the state for an object can include zero or more of a velocity, a pose, a geometry (such as width, height, and depth), […] and a location. […] and continuous state information (e.g., pose and velocity)”) ; the clearance calculating unit calculates the clearance when the vehicle passes through the grade crossing road in time series, using a value detected by the sensor (FIG. 13 1320_4; FIGs. 14-16; para. [0199]: “While the locations at 3 seconds into the future (i.e., a time window of 3 seconds) are shown with respect to the examples 1400, 1500, and 1600, more or fewer locations can be determined (e.g., predicted, calculated, etc.) given a predefined time window .”; para. [0178]: “FIG. 11, the process 1300 determines whether the AV 1102 can pass though the gap defined by the distance 1120. If so, then one gap is identified. Similarly, the process 1300 determines whether the AV 1202 can pass through the gap defined by the distance 1212 of FIG. 12.”, wherein the predicted trajectory, 3 seconds in the future, indicates vehicle passes through the grade crossing road in time series, and the figures show avoidance trajectory thus indicating calculates the clearance using a value detected by the sensor ) ; and the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is able to pass through the grade crossing road when the clearance is equal to or greater than a size that is prescribed in advance over an overall period during which the vehicle passes through the grade crossing road (para. [0147]: “it is not safe for the AV 912 to pass the dynamic vehicle 916, because, for example, no safe gap exists between the edge of the dynamic vehicle 916 and the boundaries of the adjusted drivable area”; para. [0163]: “A distance 1120 between the boundary 1114 and the left lane boundary 1108 is determined to be too narrow for the AV 1102 to drive (i.e., fit) through. As such, a location 1122 corresponding to the bin 1116 is marked as a static blockage. As such, the AV 1102 cannot pass the object(s) represented by the boundary points of the bins 1116, 1118. Accordingly, the AV 1102 is to be stopped before the static blockage corresponding to the location 1122.”, wherein “safe gap” indicates the clearance is equal to or greater than a size that is prescribed in advance over an overall period during which the vehicle passes ) , but fails to specifically teach grade crossing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches detects an obstacle that is present inside a grade crossing that intersects a traveling course of the vehicle (FIG.4; FIG. 10; FIGs. 16-21; FIG. 22 S320-S330; para. [0131]: “Referring back to FIG. 22, when the virtual lane VL is set, the object determiner 144 determines whether or not an object is present on the virtual lane VL (Step S320) . In a case in which it is determined that an object is present on the virtual lane VL, the virtual lane setting unit 154 determines whether or not a lane in which an object can be avoided can be re-set (Step S322). In a case in which it is determined that the re-setting can be performed, the virtual lane setting unit 154 re-sets a virtual lane VL in accordance with forms of partition lines of which kinds are determined in Steps S300 and S302 (Step S324; FIGS. 18 and 19). After determination of “No” is acquired in Step S322, and after re-setting of the virtual lane VL in Step S324, the process is returned to Step S320”; para. [0067]: “an avoidance event of performing braking and/or steering for avoiding approaching an obstacle object, […] a pedestrian crossing, a railroad crossing ”; para. [0106]: “On the other hand, in a case in which determination of “Yes” is acquired in Step S232, the concave part determiner 136 raises the degree of certainty in the presence of a crossing (Step S234).”, wherein FIGs. 18-19 shows the object inside the intersection of railroad tracks and the vehicles’ path). Ostafew and Ishikawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew and incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa further detect whether obstacles are present when the vehicle is located in a railroad crossing, which is another example of a path/crossing. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle when passing by narrow crossing, such as in railroads . Regarding claim 5, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1. Ostafew further teaches , wherein: the clearance calculating unit calculates the clearance using, as the size of the obstacle, a size that is obtained by a margin that is prescribed in advance being added to the detected size of the obstacle in the intersecting direction (para. [0136]: “A view 940 of FIG. 9 illustrates cutting out a portion of the drivable area. To avoid the static vehicle 914, the process 800 cuts out a cutout 942 of the drivable area 932. The size of the cut out area can be determined based on an estimate of the size of the static object. The size of the cut out area can include a clearance area so that the AV does not drive too close to the static object.”)) ; and the clearance calculating unit calculates, as the margin, a circular margin around the obstacle (FIG. 3; Modified FIG. 3; para. [0070]: “navigates the AV 302 around the parked car 304”, wherein “around” indicates a circular margin as shown in the Modified FIG. 3) . PNG media_image1.png 325 591 media_image1.png Greyscale Modified FIG. 3 Regarding claim 10, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1. Ostafew further teaches further comprising: a traveling control unit that controls traveling of the vehicle (para. [0037]: “The transmission 108 may be controlled by the controller 114, the vehicle actuator 112, or both. The steering unit 110 may be controlled by the controller 114, the vehicle actuator 112, or both and controls the wheels 132/134/136/138 to steer the vehicle.”; para. [0032]: “Although described herein with reference to an autonomous vehicle, the methods and apparatus described herein may be implemented in any vehicle capable of autonomous or semi-autonomous operation”) , wherein the traveling control unit stops the vehicle and does not allow the vehicle to pass through the grade crossing when the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is not able to pass through the grade crossing (para. [0171]: “The trajectory planner of the AV 1202 may determine that a distance 1212 is such that the AV 1202 can pass through the gap corresponding to the distance 1212. As the cutout 1210 overlaps the coarse driveline 1203, the trajectory planner of the AV 1202 performs a detailed check to determine (e.g., find) a gap to the left or to the right of the cutout 1210 such that the AV 1202 can pass through the gap. If a gap is not found as a result of the detailed check, then the AV 1202 can be considered blocked and must be stopped.”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1), and further in view of Tanahashi (US 20200247399 A1) . Tanahashi is cited in the IDS received on 07/03/2025. Regarding claim 3, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1. Ostafew further teaches wherein: the clearance calculating unit identifies, in addition to the position and size of the obstacle, for when the vehicle passes through the grade crossing, a passable area in the grade crossing that is a maximum area through which the vehicle is able to pass when the obstacle is not present (FIG. 8; FIG. 9 ; para. [0134]: “At operation 820, the process 800 extracts a drivable area. The drivable area can be the area where the AV 912 can be (e.g., legally and/or physically) driven. In an example, the drivable area can be extracted from the coarse driveline. For example, the drivable area can be a predefined distance from the AV along the coarse driveline (e.g., in the longitudinal direction). A drivable area 932 in a view 930 of FIG. 9 is an example of the drivable area. In an example, the drivable area 932 can be the area bounded (i.e., in the lateral direction) by a median 934 and a shoulder 936. In an example, the drivable area can be extracted from an HD map based on the current location of the AV 912. The drivable area can be bounded by the left and right boundaries of a lane (or a road, or some other region) in which the AV 912 is located. In an example, the drivable area can span the centerline of the road. That is, the opposite-direction traffic lane can be included in the drivable area. As such, in the view 930, if the median 934 were not present, then the drivable area could be a drivable area 938.”) , and calculates a clearance using the identified position and size of the obstacle and the identified passable area (FIG. 8; FIG. 9; para. [0136]: “At operation 830, the process 800 adjusts the drivable area for static objects. That is, the process 800 removes (e.g., cuts out, etc.) from the drivable area those portions of the drivable area where static objects are located . This is so because the AV is to be controlled to navigate (e.g., drive) around the static objects. A view 940 of FIG. 9 illustrates cutting out a portion of the drivable area . To avoid the static vehicle 914, the process 800 cuts out a cutout 942 of the drivable area 932. The size of the cut out area can be determined based on an estimate of the size of the static object . The size of the cut out area can include a clearance area so that the AV does not drive too close to the static object”, wherein the adjusted drivable area and gap indicates calculates a clearance using the identified position and size of the obstacle and the identified passable area ) ; and the clearance calculating unit determines whether an opposing vehicle is present in an opposing lane of the traveling course of the vehicle using the detection result of the sensor (FIG. 3; 332; para. [0072]: “In the situation 330, the AV 302 detects an oncoming vehicle 332”, wherein oncoming vehicle is in an opposing lane ) , sets, in response to the opposing vehicle being determined to be present in the opposing lane, a first edge of the passable area (FIG. 9; para. [0072]: “the oncoming vehicle 332 can be classified as a longitudinal constraint, as further described below. The oncoming vehicle 332 is moving in the direction opposite that of the AV 302. As such, the oncoming vehicle 332 can be classified as an oncoming longitudinal constraint ”, ) , and sets, in response to the opposing vehicle being determined not to be present in the opposing lane, an edge line that corresponds to an edge of the opposing lane as the first edge of the passable area (para. [0134]: “In an example, the drivable area can span the centerline of the road. That is, the opposite-direction traffic lane can be included in the drivable area. As such, in the view 930, if the median 934 were not present, then the drivable area could be a drivable area 938 .”), but fails to specifically teach a center line that separates the opposing lane from an own lane of the vehicle as a first edge of the passable area. However, in the same field of endeavor, TANAHASHI teaches a center line that separates the opposing lane from an own lane of the vehicle as a first edge of the passable area (FIG. 4; FIG. 5; para. [0053]: “In this state, if there is a puddle H2 ahead on the planned driving path, that is, on the lane Ln11, and a length w2 of a space S2 next to the puddle H2 in the direction orthogonal to the direction D1 is less than the width of the own vehicle VL1, and there is the oncoming vehicle VL10 on an opposite lane Ln12, the own vehicle VL1 stops short of the puddle H2”, wherein “w2” indicates the clearance between object and center line, thus indicating a center line that separates the opposing lane from an own lane of the vehicle as a first edge of the passable area ). TANAHASHI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of TANAHASHI and apply the centerline as the edge of a passable area when an oncoming vehicle is present. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle and surrounding, as it would provide a more conservative passable area, compared to that of Ostafew, by not allowing the vehicle to cross the centerline when an oncoming vehicle is present, thus preventing collision with the oncoming vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1), and further in view of Caldwell (US 20190355257 A1) . Regarding claim 4, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1. Ostafew further teaches wherein: the clearance calculating unit calculates the clearance using, as the size of the obstacle, a size that is obtained by a margin that is prescribed in advance being added to the detected size of the obstacle in the intersecting direction (para. [0136]: “A view 940 of FIG. 9 illustrates cutting out a portion of the drivable area. To avoid the static vehicle 914, the process 800 cuts out a cutout 942 of the drivable area 932. The size of the cut out area can be determined based on an estimate of the size of the static object. The size of the cut out area can include a clearance area so that the AV does not drive too close to the static object.”) , but fails to specifically teach the margin when the obstacle is a pedestrian is set to be greater than the margin when the margin when the obstacle is a bicycle. However, in the same field of endeavor, Caldwell teaches the margin when the obstacle is a pedestrian is set to be greater than the margin when the margin when the obstacle is a bicycle (para. [0021]: “These offsets may serve to provide a safety margin or minimum distance of the vehicle 102 from the objects, as the vehicle 102 travels in the drive envelope 116. In some implementations, the offsets and/or the minimum distances may differ among and between agents in the environment 100. For example, semantic information about the agents may be used to determine appropriate offsets. Thus, in FIG. 1, pedestrians may be associated with a first classification and vehicles may be associated with a second classification. The first classification may correspond to a minimum offset larger than a minimum offset to which the second classification corresponds .”; para.[0091]: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of any one of example N through example P, wherein the classification comprises a car, a pedestrian, or a bicycle, the method further comprising: determining, based on the classification, a safety margin.”, wherein the safety margin is larger for a pedestrian compared to vehicle thus reasonably indicating margin when the obstacle is a pedestrian is set to be greater than the margin when the margin when the obstacle is a bicycle, as a bicycle is a form of vehicle) . Caldwell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Caldwell and apply different safety margins based on the classification. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle and surrounding, as it would allow account for uncertainty associated with potential future movement of agents or prediction models that characterize the movement (Caldwell, para. [0009]) and provide more safety to certain objects, such as collision with pedestrians will result in a higher harm to the pedestrian compared to another vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1), and further in view of Powelson (US9360335B1) . Regarding claim 11, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach further comprising: an alternative course identifying unit that identifies an alternative course that is a course that does not pass through the grade crossing; and an alternative course presenting unit that presents the identified alternative course, wherein the alternative course presenting unit presents the alternative course when the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is not able to pass through the grade crossing. However, Powelson teaches an alternative course identifying unit that identifies an alternative course that is a course that does not pass through the grade crossing (FIG. 4; col 9 lines 4-8: “At the block 408, the method 400 periodically checks for current road conditions such as traffic, road closures , accidents, etc. Based on the current road conditions, a new route between a current location and the destination is obtained.”, wherein road closure indicates that does not pass through ) ; and an alternative course presenting unit that presents the identified alternative course (FIG. 4; col 9 lines 65-68: “if the new route is selected, then the method 400 moves to block 420, where the method 400 shows the new route to the destination”) , wherein the alternative course presenting unit presents the alternative course when the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is not able to pass through the grade crossing (FIG. 4; col 9 lines 65-68: “if the new route is selected, then the method 400 moves to block 420, where the method 400 shows the new route to the destination”; col 9 lines 4-8: “At the block 408, the method 400 periodically checks for current road conditions such as traffic, road closures , accidents, etc. Based on the current road conditions, a new route between a current location and the destination is obtained.”) . Powelson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of providing guidance to the driver in response to detected road events. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Powelson and display a different route in response to determining that the vehicle is not able to continue the current route. Doing so would enhance user experience by providing alternate route to traverse when the current route cannot be passed . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1), and further in view of Kokaki (US 20200377083 A1) . Regarding claim 12, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach further comprising: a driving switching unit that assigns control of at least a portion of operation functions related to driving of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle, wherein the driving switching unit assigns control of at least a portion of the operation functions to the driver when the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is not able to pass through the grade crossing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kokaki teaches the driving switching unit implemented on the processing system and that assigns control of at least a portion of the operation functions to the driver when the passing decision unit determines that the vehicle is not able to pass (par [0102]: “In addition, in a case in which it is determined by the passage/no-passage determiner 124 that the vehicle cannot pass through the obstacle, the action plan generator 123 may perform switching control of switching the driving mode of the vehicle M from automated driving to manual driving. In such a case, the interface controller 150 may present a message for switching to manual driving to a vehicle occupant using the HMI 30. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating one example of details presented to a vehicle occupant at the time of driving switching. In a case in which it is determined by the passage/no-passage determiner 124 that the vehicle cannot pass through the obstacle, the interface controller 150 causes the display device 31 of the HMI 30 to display a driving switching message screen 31B. As the driving switching message, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 14, a message “There is an obstacle on the front side, and the vehicle cannot pass it in the automated driving mode. Please switch to manual driving!” or the like may be output but is not limited thereto”, wherein a switch to manual driving indicates assigns control of at least a portion of the operation functions to the driver ). Kokaki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Kokaki and alert and transfer the control to the driver. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle, as it would allow prompt intervention of the driver prior to the autonomous system failing to safely control the vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew (US 20210237769 A1), in view of Ishikawa (US20190080599A1), and further in view of Matsunaga (US20200255005A1), and further in view of Ghannam (US 20190212156 A1) . Regarding claim 14, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa teaches the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to specifically teach a passage completion determining unit that, while before the vehicle is passing through the grade crossing, determines whether passage through the grade crossing can be completed, based on a presence/absence of an empty space after the grade crossing is passed, using the detection result of the sensor ; and a notifying unit that performs notification to an organization that manages the grade crossing, wherein the notifying unit performs notification when passage through the grade crossing is determined to not be able to be completed . However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsunaga teaches a passage completion determining unit that, while before the vehicle is passing through the grade crossing, determines whether passage through the grade crossing can be completed, based on a presence/absence of an empty space after the grade crossing is passed, using the detection result of the sensor (FIG. 4; FIG. 5-6; para. [0049]: “In step S14, the space existence determination unit 84 determines whether the space 130 that the host vehicle 10 can enter exists on the basis of the recognition result. The space existence determination unit 84 compares the space length L2 and a vehicle length L1 of the host vehicle 10. The vehicle length L1 is stored in the storage device 52 in advance. As illustrated in FIG. 5, if the vehicle length L1 is less than the space length L2, that is, if the space 130 that the host vehicle 10 can enter exists (step S14: YES), the railroad crossing passing process ends and the process advances to step S6 in the main process”) . Matsunaga is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Matsunaga and determine whether there is sufficient space after the railroad crossing. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle, as it would allow determination of whether the vehicle has sufficient empty space after the crossing of the railroad. However, Ostafew in view of Ishikawa and further in view of Matsunaga fails to specifically teach while the vehicle is passing through the grade crossing and a notifying unit that performs notification to an organization that manages the grade crossing, wherein the notifying unit performs notification when passage through the grade crossing is determined to not be able to be completed. However, Ghannam teaches a notifying unit that performs notification to an organization that manages the grade crossing (FIG. 13; para. [0091]: “At block 1326, the action determiner 780 determines that an emergency message is to be displayed via the IHU 560 and the feedback generator 790 generates the emergency message 1050. Further, at block 1326, the action determiner 780 sends a help request message to the police, the train 130, and neighboring vehicles via the DSRC transceiver 540 and the network 150.”) , wherein the notifying unit performs notification when passage through the grade crossing is determined to not be able to be completed while the vehicle is passing through the grade crossing (FIG. 13; para. [0088]: “At block 1324, the action determiner 780 determines whether the vehicle 101 is stranded on the rails of the at-grade crossing.”, wherein stranded on indicates passage through the grade crossing is determined to not be able to be completed while the vehicle is passing through the grade crossing ) . Ghannam is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of detecting obstacles and whether the vehicle is able to pass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ostafew in view of Ishikawa and further in view of Matsunaga to incorporate the teachings of Ghannam and request for help if the vehicle is stuck and unable to pass the grade crossing. Doing so would increase safety of the vehicle, as it would allow appropriate measures, thus preventing a train and vehicle collision . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 15-17 are allowed. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 13 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shitamoto (US20130116880A1) teaches an autonomous mobile body capable of moving by autonomously setting a pull-off direction so that a movable obstacle can pass through safely, without setting a halt region in advance . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM. 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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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. /ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 12 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 17 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 18 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 19 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 20 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 21 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 22 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 23 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 24 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 26 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 27 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/224,353 Page 28 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights