DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “an information grasping section configured t…”, “a determination section configured to…” in claim 1 and “a control execution section…” in claim 3. corresponding structure is found on paragraphs 0044-0045 and 0054-0056.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 19, and 20 the recited limitation “in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this condition is for the deciding step (deciding whether to execute evacuation) or if this is a condition for searching step (searching for an evacuation position).
Claims 2-18 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determine autonomous driving control of the subject vehicle; decide whether to execute evacuation control for evacuating the subject vehicle from the emergency vehicle based on an environment of the intersection, in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, search for an evacuation position that is deviated from a prediction track of the emergency vehicle and from which the subject vehicle is configured to return to the traveling direction, and decide to evacuate the subject vehicle to the evacuation position. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a circuit and a processor with memory”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as road/environmental data, intersection data, and location(s) data could determine autonomous driving control of the subject vehicle; decide whether to execute evacuation control for evacuating the subject vehicle from the emergency vehicle based on an environment of the intersection, in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, search for an evacuation position that is deviated from a prediction track of the emergency vehicle and from which the subject vehicle is configured to return to the traveling direction, and decide to evacuate the subject vehicle to the evacuation position. The mere nominal recitation of “a circuit and processor with memory” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of grasping information; grasping information about an environment of an intersection where the subject vehicle is scheduled to travel and information about an emergency vehicle present around the subject vehicle; information grasping section, a determination section, a circuit, and a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor. The grasping steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (environment data, emergency vehicles data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of information grasping section, a determination section, a circuit, and a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the grasping steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-18 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo (US 20200089253 A1) in view of Yamauchi Kazuhiro (JP2020149440A).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of JP2020149440A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Sudo discloses a vehicle control device that autonomously controls driving of a subject vehicle (see at least [0129]), the vehicle control device comprising at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor (see at least [0154]), the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: an information grasping section configured to grasp information (see at least [0054-0056], [0087], [0092-0096], [0119], [0126], and [0163-0164]); and a determination section configured to determine autonomous driving control of the subject vehicle (see at least [0129-0132] and [0170-0171]), wherein the information grasping section grasps information about an environment of an intersection where the subject vehicle is scheduled to travel and information about an emergency vehicle present around the subject vehicle (see at least [0087], [0092-0096], [0119], [0121-0122], [0126], and [0140-0141]), the determination section decides whether to execute evacuation control for evacuating the subject vehicle from the emergency vehicle based on an environment of the intersection (see at least [0120-0126] and [Figs. 8A-8C]).
However, Sudo do not specifically disclose in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, the determination section searches for an evacuation position that is deviated from a prediction track of the emergency vehicle and from which the subject vehicle is configured to return to the traveling direction, and decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to the evacuation position.
Yamauchi teaches in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, the determination section searches for an evacuation position that is deviated from a prediction track of the emergency vehicle and from which the subject vehicle is configured to return to the traveling direction (see at least [0037] and [Fig. 5], “…if the ambulance approaches from behind and the announcement is "Turn left" before the vehicle enters the intersection, the vehicle will turn left before entering the intersection. , It will be "stopped" after "left justified".”), and decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to the evacuation position (see at least [0037] and [Fig. 5], “…if the ambulance approaches from behind and the announcement is "Turn left" before the vehicle enters the intersection, the vehicle will turn left before entering the intersection. , It will be "stopped" after "left justified".”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection and proceed in a predetermined traveling direction at the intersection, and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, the determination section searches for an evacuation position that is deviated from a prediction track of the emergency vehicle and from which the subject vehicle is configured to return to the traveling direction. This would be done to allow an emergency vehicle to pass safely and reliably preferentially when an emergency vehicle approaches a straight road, near an intersection, or within an intersection while the autonomous vehicle is traveling (see Yamauchi para 0006).
With respect to claim 2, Sudo discloses wherein the determination section decides to evacuate the subject vehicle in a vehicle posture that enables the subject vehicle to return in the traveling direction at the evacuation position (see at least [0102], [0114-0119], and [Figs. 5A-5D and 7A-7D]).
With respect to claim 4, Sudo discloses wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to enter the intersection from a current road, and the emergency vehicle is about to enter the intersection from a road different from the current road among roads connecting to the intersection, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to stand by at a temporary stop on the current road (see at least [0120-0127] and [Figs. 8A-8C])..
With respect to claim 5, Sudo discloses wherein the information grasping section grasps detection information of a sensor that detects a siren sound emitted from the emergency vehicle as information about the emergency vehicle (see at least [0047], [0058-0061], [0067-0069], [0094-0095], [0107-0109], [0118], [0122], [0125], [0128-0130], [0138-0143], and [0145-0148]), and the determination section temporarily stops the subject vehicle in a case of detecting the siren sound (see at least [0047], [0058-0061], [0067-0069], [0094-0095], [0107-0109], [0118], [0122], [0125], [0128-0130], [0138-0143], and [0145-0148]), and then determines a next action of the subject vehicle when at least one of a position and a traveling direction of the emergency vehicle is identified (see at least [0047], [0058-0061], [0067-0069], [0094-0095], [0107-0109], [0118], [0122], [0125], [0128-0130], [0138-0143], and [0145-0148]).
With respect to claim 6, Sudo discloses wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection, a traveling direction of the emergency vehicle is a same as a traveling direction of the subject vehicle, and a distance between the subject vehicle and the emergency vehicle is a preset threshold distance or more, the determination section decides to restart the subject vehicle such that the subject vehicle escapes from the intersection (see at least [0060], [0080], [0082], [0111-0113], [0120-0126], [0130], [0142-0144], [Figs. 5A-5D and 7A-7D]).
With respect to claim 7, Sudo discloses wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection, a traveling direction of the emergency vehicle is a same as a traveling direction of the subject vehicle, and a distance between the subject vehicle and the emergency vehicle is smaller than a preset threshold distance, the determination section continues a temporary stop of the subject vehicle (see at least [0060], [0080], [0082], [0111-0113], [0120-0126], [0130], [0142-0144], [Figs. 5A-5D and 7A-7D]).
With respect to claim 8, Sudo discloses wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection and a traveling direction of the emergency vehicle is different from a traveling direction of the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to restart the subject vehicle such that the subject vehicle escapes from the intersection (see at least [0120-0126] and [Figs. 8A-8C]).
With respect to claim 10, Sudo do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where the subject vehicle is at a head of the road before entering the intersection, the determination section decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to an outer periphery of the intersection
Yamauchi teaches wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where the subject vehicle is at a head of the road before entering the intersection, the determination section decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to an outer periphery of the intersection (see at least [0037] and [Fig. 5], “…if the ambulance approaches from behind and the announcement is "Turn left" before the vehicle enters the intersection, the vehicle will turn left before entering the intersection. , It will be "stopped" after "left justified".”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where the subject vehicle is at a head of the road before entering the intersection, the determination section decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to an outer periphery of the intersection. This would be done to allow an emergency vehicle to pass safely and reliably preferentially when an emergency vehicle approaches a straight road, near an intersection, or within an intersection while the autonomous vehicle is traveling (see Yamauchi para 0006).
With respect to claim 11, Sudo discloses wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where the subject vehicle follows a head vehicle on the road before entering the intersection, the determination section decides to evacuate the subject vehicle to a road before entering the intersection (see at least [0060], [0080], [0082], [0111-0113], [0117-0126], [0130], [0142-0144], [Figs. 5A-5D and 7A-7D]).
With respect to claim 18, Sudo do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in a queue of vehicles on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is recognized, the determination section decides whether to execute a transfer of authority of the driving to a driver of the subject vehicle according to a relative position of the subject vehicle in the queue of vehicles.
Yamauchi teaches wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in a queue of vehicles on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is recognized, the determination section decides whether to execute a transfer of authority of the driving to a driver of the subject vehicle according to a relative position of the subject vehicle in the queue of vehicles (see at least [0038], [0027], and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in a queue of vehicles on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is recognized, the determination section decides whether to execute a transfer of authority of the driving to a driver of the subject vehicle according to a relative position of the subject vehicle in the queue of vehicles. This would be done to allow an emergency vehicle to pass safely and reliably preferentially when an emergency vehicle approaches a straight road, near an intersection, or within an intersection while the autonomous vehicle is traveling (see Yamauchi para 0006).
With respect to claim 19, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective control device claim 1. As such, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, it is a method claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the respective control device claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 3, 9, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo (US 20200089253 A1) in view of Yamauchi Kazuhiro (JP2020149440A) in view of Imai Kenichiro (JP2018116409A).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of JP2020149440A and JP2018116409A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 3, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: a control execution section configured to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle in a state where a hazard lamp is turned on.
Imai teaches wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: a control execution section configured to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle in a state where a hazard lamp is turned on (see at least [0024], [0095], and [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the vehicle control device to implement: a control execution section configured to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle in a state where a hazard lamp is turned on. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
With respect to claim 9, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section determines whether to continue a temporary stop of the subject vehicle or restart the subject vehicle such that the subject vehicle escapes from the intersection, depending on whether there is a space that the subject vehicle is capable of evacuating on a road connected to the intersection and ahead in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle.
Imai teaches wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section determines whether to continue a temporary stop of the subject vehicle or restart the subject vehicle such that the subject vehicle escapes from the intersection, depending on whether there is a space that the subject vehicle is capable of evacuating on a road connected to the intersection and ahead in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle (see at least [0039-0040], [0057], [0076-0077], and [0128-0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section determines whether to continue a temporary stop of the subject vehicle or restart the subject vehicle such that the subject vehicle escapes from the intersection, depending on whether there is a space that the subject vehicle is capable of evacuating on a road connected to the intersection and ahead in a traveling direction of the subject vehicle. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
With respect to claim 14, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to pass through the intersection, the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and another vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle and to cause the subject vehicle to make an out-of-vehicle notification urging the another vehicle to exit from the intersection.
Imai teaches wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to pass through the intersection, the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and another vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle and to cause the subject vehicle to make an out-of-vehicle notification urging the another vehicle to exit from the intersection (see at least [0082-0083], [0088-0089], [0095], and [0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is scheduled to pass through the intersection, the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and another vehicle is present in the intersection, the determination section decides to temporarily stop the subject vehicle and to cause the subject vehicle to make an out-of-vehicle notification urging the another vehicle to exit from the intersection. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
With respect to claim 15, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein in a case where the another vehicle exits from the intersection, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle.
Imai teaches wherein in a case where the another vehicle exits from the intersection, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle (see at least [0082-0083], [0088-0089], [0095], and [0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein in a case where the another vehicle exits from the intersection, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control of the subject vehicle. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
With respect to claim 16, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle.
Imai teaches wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle (see at least [0082-0083], [0088-0089], [0095], and [0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
With respect to claim 17, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle.
Imai teaches wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle (see at least [0082-0083], [0088-0089], [0095], and [0110-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein under a situation where the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to make a notification of urging cancellation of the situation by a manual operation by a driver to the driver of the subject vehicle. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically teach wherein in a case where it is estimated that the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to travel in a direction different from a traveling direction scheduled by the subject vehicle after the subject vehicle performs the evacuation control.
Imai teaches wherein in a case where it is estimated that the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to travel in a direction different from a traveling direction scheduled by the subject vehicle after the subject vehicle performs the evacuation control (see at least [0039-0040], [0057], [0076-0077], [0128-0132], and [Figs. 13-25]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Imai wherein in a case where it is estimated that the subject vehicle is left in the intersection by a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicating a stop signal as a result of execution of the evacuation control by the subject vehicle, the determination section decides to cause the subject vehicle to travel in a direction different from a traveling direction scheduled by the subject vehicle after the subject vehicle performs the evacuation control. This would be done to improv automatic evacuation for emergency vehicles (see Imai para 0109).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo (US 20200089253 A1) in view of Yamauchi Kazuhiro (JP2020149440A) in view of Seder et al (US 20230162595 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Sudo as modified by Yamauchi do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicates a stop signal, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control deviating from a traffic rule.
Sedar teaches wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicates a stop signal, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control deviating from a traffic rule (see at least [0036], [0045], and [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sudo as modified by Yamauchi, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sedar wherein in a case where the subject vehicle is present on a road before entering the intersection and the emergency vehicle is following the subject vehicle from behind the subject vehicle, and in a case where a traffic signal related to a traveling direction of the subject vehicle indicates a stop signal, the determination section decides to execute the evacuation control deviating from a traffic rule l. This would be done to improve route conflict with emergency vehicle identification system (see Sedar para 0004)
With respect to claim 13, Sudo discloses wherein in the evacuation control deviating from the traffic rule, the determination section evacuates the subject vehicle to an evacuation position present within a range less than or equal to a preset evacuation distance from an entry point of the subject vehicle into the intersection (see at least [0060], [0080], [0082], [0111-0113], [0120-0126], [0130], [0142-0144], [Figs. 5A-5D and 7A-7D]).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights