DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 19/264,265, filed July 9, 2025. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on January 9, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/12/2025, 4/8/2026, 7/15/2026, and 7/23/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “S850” has been used to designate two separate steps in the method of Figure 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: S870. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-11, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an method claim comprising the steps of obtaining and determining. (thus the claims are to a method, Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
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 following 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:
A method, comprising:
obtaining first environment information of a first lane;
determining, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD
determining a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determining based on the distribution status, a driving strategy.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Specifically, “determining, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD; determining a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and; determining based on the distribution status, a driving strategy” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating sensor information to identify objects, determining a positional relationship between those objects and a lane, and using those determinations to determine a driving strategy. 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 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
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 area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method, comprising:
obtaining first environment information of a first lane;
determining, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD
determining a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determining based on the distribution status, a driving strategy.
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 limitations of “A method, comprising: obtaining first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a sensor to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining information steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “A method, comprising: obtaining first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding dependent claims 5-6 and 10
Under Step 1:
Claims 5-6 and 10 are to a method comprising the steps of “determining third environment information of an adjacent lane of the first lane; determining, based on the third environment information road condition of the adjacent lane; and determining, based on the road condition, that the driving strategy is a second strategy or a third strategy” (Claim 5), “wherein the second state comprises a minimum distance between a first edge line of the first TTCD cluster and a road center line of the first lane being less than a first threshold” (Claim 6), and “identifying, based on a cluster fitting manner the distribution status” (Claim 10), (thus the claims are to an method, Step 1: yes).
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 5-6 and 10 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations of “determining third environment information of an adjacent lane of the first lane; determining, based on the third environment information road condition of the adjacent lane; and determining, based on the road condition, that the driving strategy is a second strategy or a third strategy” (Claim 5), “wherein the second state comprises a minimum distance between a first edge line of the first TTCD cluster and a road center line of the first lane being less than a first threshold” (Claim 6), and “identifying, based on a cluster fitting manner the distribution status” (Claim 10), These claims recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically claim 5 only comprises further mental process steps in the form of determining new information and determining specific strategies. Claims 6 and 10 only further define the mental process steps of claim 1 by defining the states and how the distribution status is determined. Therefore the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
Step 2B, the claims 5-6 and 10 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as that discussed in Step 2A Prong Two.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims 5-6 and 10 fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 5-6 and 10 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11,
Under Step 1:
Claim 11 is an apparatus claim comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium. (thus the claims are to an apparatus Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 11 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 11 recites:
An apparatus, comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to:
obtain first environment information of a first lane;
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD;
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. non-transitory computer readable storage medium … processor). Specifically, but for the “non-transitory computer readable storage medium … processor” language, “determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD; determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating sensor information to identify objects, determining a positional relationship between those objects and a lane, and using those determinations to determine a driving strategy. 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 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
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 area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus, comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to:
obtain first environment information of a first lane;
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD;
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy
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 limitations of “obtain first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a sensor to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining information steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitations of “An apparatus, comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The storage medium and processor are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor).
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.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “An apparatus, comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtain first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 11 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 15-16, claims 15-16 are similar in scope to claims 5-6 and therefore are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20,
Under Step 1:
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim comprising a a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. (thus the claims are to an apparatus Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 20 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 20 recites:
A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to:
obtain first environment information of a first lane;
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD;
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. non-transitory computer readable storage medium … processor). Specifically, but for the “non-transitory computer readable storage medium … processor” language, “determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD; determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating sensor information to identify objects, determining a positional relationship between those objects and a lane, and using those determinations to determine a driving strategy. 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 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
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 area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to:
obtain first environment information of a first lane;
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane, wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD;
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane and
determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy
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 limitations of “obtain first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a sensor to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining information steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitations of “A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The storage medium and processor are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor).
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.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtain first environment information of a first lane” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
EXAMINERS NOTE: Regarding claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-14 and 17-19, claims 2, 12, 7, and 17 recite the limitations of “wherein the first strategy is to control a vehicle to bypass the first TTCD cluster at a first speed” and “where the second strategy is to control a vehicle to change to the adjacent lane for traveling … control the vehicle to brake in the first lane,” these limitations comprise the additional steps of actively controlling the vehicle after the driving strategy is determined. If a step of actively controlling the vehicle in response to the mental process determination steps is included in the independent claims, this would be sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, pending review of the amended language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sim (US 20170032678).
Regarding claim 1, Sim teaches a method, comprising: (Paragraph [0010], "In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a driving assistant method including")
obtaining first environment information of a first lane (Paragraph [0028], "may include a detection unit 110 to detect at least one of an edge of a road, a lane of the road, and an object positioned within a certain range on the road")
determining, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane (Paragraph [0048-0049], "Referring to FIG. 3 in the situation of FIG. 2, the detection unit of the driving assistant device according to the embodiment of the present invention may detect at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within a certain range on the road (S300). When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320),” here the system is determining objects 240-270 that are positioned in the lane on the road ahead of the vehicle)
wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD (Paragraph [0047], "Further, rubber cones 260 to 265 are placed in a second lane of the road for repair work or the like, a pedestrian 250 is attempting to cross the road, and another car 270 is running on a first lane of the road")
determining a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane (Paragraph [0049], "When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320)," here the system is determining the relative position/distance from the object/TTCD to the vehicle)
and determining based on the distribution status, a driving strategy (Paragraph [0057], "As described above, when the risk levels of the edge 220, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road are determined, the control unit may control one or more of the indicator, the steering system, the brake, the headrest, and the belt included in the driver's car 210 according to the determined risk levels (S340).").
Regarding claim 2, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein determining the driving strategy comprises determining that the driving strategy is a first strategy when the distribution status is a first state (See Figure 8B showing the system determining a first driving strategy/trajectory 610 when the distribution/positioning of the road objects is in a first state)
and wherein the first strategy is to control a vehicle to bypass the first TTCD cluster at a first speed (Paragraph [0061], “The driving route generation unit 510 may generate a driving route based on at least one of the distance from the edge, the distance from the lane, the distance from the object, and the speed of the object, which are calculated by the calculation unit 120,” here the system is generating a driving strategy/driving route based on the position/distances of the objects) (Paragraph [0062], “driving route generation unit 510 may generate a driving route which focuses on distance and speed relative to the pedestrian as the highest risk level,” this driving route includes a first speed to bypass the objects).
Regarding claim 3, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein the first state comprises a minimum distance between a first edge line of the first TTCD cluster and a road center line of the first lane being greater than or equal to a first threshold (Paragraph [0072], “Alternatively, as illustrated in FIG. 8B, the detection unit may detect, as one group 810b, a region including a lane 231 adjacent to a rubber cone 265b as an object positioned within a short range from the driver's car 210 and rubber cones 260b, 261b, 262b, 263b, 264b, and 265b as the same objects, and although distances 820b, 821b, 822b, and 823b between the adjacent lane 231 and the rubber cones (objects) decrease (for example, from 821b to 822b, and 823b), the transverse length (width) of the region may be maintained for a preset longitudinal length 830.,” as can be seen in figure 8A and 8B the system is determining an edge line for the TTCD cluster, and the system is comparing this distance to a threshold in order to determine the control of the vehicle)
and wherein the first edge line is of the first TTCD cluster and extends along a direction of the first lane (See Figures 8A and 8B showing the system determining an edge line of the TTCD cluster which extends along a direction of the lane).
Regarding claim 4, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein before determining that the driving strategy is the first strategy, the method further comprises: determining based on the first state second environment information comprising at least one of a length of a first edge line of the first TTCD cluster, an included angle between the first edge line and a road center line of the first lane, or a minimum distance between the vehicle and the first TTCD cluster; and determining, based on the second environment information, the first speed (See figures 8A and 8B showing the system determining an edge line of the TTCD cluster) (Paragraph [0062], “may generate a driving route which focuses on distance and speed relative to the pedestrian as the highest risk level”) (Paragraph [0081], “Referring to FIG. 10, the driving assistant method according to the embodiment of the present invention may include: a detection operation (S1000) of detecting at least one of an edge of a road, a lane of the road, and an object positioned within a certain range on the road; a calculation operation (S1010) of calculating the distance from the edge, the distance from the lane, the distance from the object, and the speed of the object, and of calculating TTC with each of the edge, the lane, and the object based on the calculated distances and speed; a management operation (S1020) of setting a risk level of at least one of the edge, the lane, and the object of the road, and of adjusting the risk level based on the TTC; and a control operation (S1030) of controlling at least one of an indicator, a steering system, a brake, a headrest, and a belt according to the risk level,” here the system can determine a distance of the TTCD cluster and use this information to determine control signals including a speed).
Regarding claim 5, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein when the distribution status is a second state, determining the driving strategy comprises: determining third environment information of an adjacent lane of the first lane; determining, based on the third environment information road condition of the adjacent lane; and determining, based on the road condition, that the driving strategy is a second strategy or a third strategy. (Paragraph [0066], “If a collision with the other car 270 is likely to happen when the driver's car 210 changes the driving lane to a first lane, the driving route generation unit may not generate a driving route. For example, the driving route generation unit may expect the collision based on data on the difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and the distance from the other car 270. The data may be characterized in that the probability of a collision with the other car 270 increases with a greater difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and with a shorter distance from the other car 270,” here the system is determining a driving strategy, in this case to not generate a driving route to change a lane or not, based on environmental information of an adjacent lane indicating a collision).
Regarding claim 6, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein the second state comprises a minimum distance between a first edge line of the first TTCD cluster and a road center line of the first lane being less than a first threshold (Paragraph [0065], “Referring to FIGS. 6 and 7, the driving route generation unit may generate a driving route 610 based on at least one of the distance from the edge 220, the distance from the lanes 230, the distance from the median strip 240 as one of the objects, the distance from the rubber cones 260 to 265 as one of the objects, the distance from the other car 270 as one of the objects, and the speed of the other car 270, which are calculated by the calculation unit.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein determining that the driving strategy is the second strategy or the third strategy comprises determining that the driving strategy is the second strategy when the road condition meets a first lane change condition, where the second strategy is to control a vehicle to change to the adjacent lane for traveling and determining that the driving strategy is the third strategy when the road condition does not meet the first lane change condition, wherein the third strategy is to control the vehicle to brake in the first lane (Paragraph [0066], “If a collision with the other car 270 is likely to happen when the driver's car 210 changes the driving lane to a first lane, the driving route generation unit may not generate a driving route. For example, the driving route generation unit may expect the collision based on data on the difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and the distance from the other car 270. The data may be characterized in that the probability of a collision with the other car 270 increases with a greater difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and with a shorter distance from the other car 270,” here the system is determining a driving strategy, in this case to not generate a driving route to change a lane or not, based on environmental information of an adjacent lane indicating a collision) (Paragraph [0044], “control the brake so as to avoid a collision”).
Regarding claim 8, Sim teaches the method as discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein the first lane change condition comprises the vehicle is allowed to change between the first lane and the adjacent lane, a front of the adjacent lane is not occupied, and no other vehicle travels at a lateral rear of the adjacent lane (Paragraph [0066], “If a collision with the other car 270 is likely to happen when the driver's car 210 changes the driving lane to a first lane, the driving route generation unit may not generate a driving route. For example, the driving route generation unit may expect the collision based on data on the difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and the distance from the other car 270. The data may be characterized in that the probability of a collision with the other car 270 increases with a greater difference between the speed of the other car 270 and the speed of the driver's car 210 and with a shorter distance from the other car 270,” here the system is determining a driving strategy, in this case to not generate a driving route to change a lane or not, based on environmental information of an adjacent lane indicating a collision if there is no other vehicle and therefore no collision then the system will generate a trajectory to change lanes).
Regarding claim 9, Sim teaches the method a discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches wherein when the driving strategy is the third strategy, the method further determining, based on a position relationship between a first TTCD in the first TTCD cluster and the vehicle, a braking strategy of the vehicle, and wherein the first TTCD is a TTCD closest to the vehicle in the first TTCD cluster (Paragraph [0058], “For example, the control unit may control the indictor to provide a notification to the driver, may control the steering system or brake to prevent a collision with one or more of the edge 220, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road”).
Regarding claim 10, Sim teaches the method a discussed above in claim 1, Sim further teaches further comprising identifying, based on a cluster fitting manner the distribution status (Paragraph [0070], “As illustrated in FIG. 8A, when the number of the same objects, which are rubber cones 260a, 261a, 262a, 263a, 264a, and 265a, is a preset threshold or greater, the objects may be detected as one group 810.”).
Regarding claim 11, Sim teaches an apparatus, comprising: (Paragraph [0010], "In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a driving assistant method including") (Paragraph [0028], “Referring to FIG. 1, the driving assistant device 100, according to the embodiment of the present invention”)
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (See Figure 1 showing a detection unit, calculation unit, management unit, and control unit, each configured to execute instructions to control the apparatus)
obtain first environment information of a first lane (Paragraph [0028], "may include a detection unit 110 to detect at least one of an edge of a road, a lane of the road, and an object positioned within a certain range on the road")
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane (Paragraph [0048-0049], "Referring to FIG. 3 in the situation of FIG. 2, the detection unit of the driving assistant device according to the embodiment of the present invention may detect at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within a certain range on the road (S300). When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320),” here the system is determining objects 240-270 that are positioned in the lane on the road ahead of the vehicle)
wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD (Paragraph [0047], "Further, rubber cones 260 to 265 are placed in a second lane of the road for repair work or the like, a pedestrian 250 is attempting to cross the road, and another car 270 is running on a first lane of the road")
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane (Paragraph [0049], "When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320)," here the system is determining the relative position/distance from the object/TTCD to the vehicle)
and determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy (Paragraph [0057], "As described above, when the risk levels of the edge 220, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road are determined, the control unit may control one or more of the indicator, the steering system, the brake, the headrest, and the belt included in the driver's car 210 according to the determined risk levels (S340).").
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9, and therefore is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Sim teaches a computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that, when executed by one or more processors, cause an apparatus to (Paragraph [0010], "In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a driving assistant method including") (Paragraph [0028], “Referring to FIG. 1, the driving assistant device 100, according to the embodiment of the present invention”) (See Figure 1 showing a detection unit, calculation unit, management unit, and control unit, each configured to execute instructions to control the apparatus)
obtain first environment information of a first lane (Paragraph [0028], "may include a detection unit 110 to detect at least one of an edge of a road, a lane of the road, and an object positioned within a certain range on the road")
determine, based on the first environment information, that a first temporary traffic control device (TTCD) cluster is distributed in the first lane (Paragraph [0048-0049], "Referring to FIG. 3 in the situation of FIG. 2, the detection unit of the driving assistant device according to the embodiment of the present invention may detect at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within a certain range on the road (S300). When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320),” here the system is determining objects 240-270 that are positioned in the lane on the road ahead of the vehicle)
wherein the first TTCD cluster comprises at least one TTCD (Paragraph [0047], "Further, rubber cones 260 to 265 are placed in a second lane of the road for repair work or the like, a pedestrian 250 is attempting to cross the road, and another car 270 is running on a first lane of the road")
determine a distribution status of the first TTCD cluster in the first lane, wherein the distribution status indicates a relative position relationship between the at least one TTCD and the first lane (Paragraph [0049], "When the detection unit performs operation S300, the calculation unit may calculate distance and speed with respect to at least one of the edge 220 of the road, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road, which are detected in S300, (S310) and may calculate TTC based on the calculated distance, speed, and the speed of the driver's car 210 (S320)," here the system is determining the relative position/distance from the object/TTCD to the vehicle)
and determine, based on the distribution status, a driving strategy (Paragraph [0057], "As described above, when the risk levels of the edge 220, the lanes 230 of the road, and the objects 240, 250, 260 to 265, and 270 positioned within the certain range on the road are determined, the control unit may control one or more of the indicator, the steering system, the brake, the headrest, and the belt included in the driver's car 210 according to the determined risk levels (S340).").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoyda (US-11934196) teaches the control of a vehicle based on visual recognition of objects in the vicinity of the vehicle. Degirmenci (US-20240077882) teaches systems and methods for configuring a vehicle to scan for specific features in an environment. Schmidt (US-20210284198) teaches providing a vehicle navigation path through an environment; determining a location of the vehicle relative to the path; generating one or more polygons representing a shape of the vehicle projected from the vehicle location in a vehicle travel direction long the path; combining the one or more projections into a projected motion polygon; acquiring object information representing an object shape from one or more sensors; and determining if the object shape overlaps the projected motion polygon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights