DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed October 1, 2025 has been entered. This is the second round of prosecution in the fourth RCE. Though the applicant never states this, claims 1, 8, and 15, have been amended. Claims 23 and 24 are presently canceled. The remaining canceled claims were previously canceled. Claims 25 and 26 are new. The remaining claims besides those are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21, 22, 25, and 26 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
The applicant’s Remarks, filed October 1, 2025, has been fully considered. The applicant states on page 7 under the heading “Amendments to the Claims,” that Brown et al. (US2017/0158225 A1) does not teach, as present claim 1 does, at least a system in which the host vehicle “potential merge comprises the vehicle entering the adjacent lane and subsequently accelerating to the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane while remaining at least the safe following distance ahead of the adjacent vehicle”. Rather, the applicant argues that Brown Fig. 2 and paragraph 0101, teach that the host vehicle 32 in Brown accelerates to “get into the slot 35 or 33. In other words, the applicant is arguing that Brown does not teach as claim 1 does, a vehicle that first changes lanes into a slot and then subsequently accelerates.
The applicant points to paragraphs 0041-0042 as providing support for the amendment to claim 1.
The examiner does not think that these paragraphs provide written description for the amendment to claim 1. For an explanation, please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21, 22, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of providing merging assistance for a vehicle, the method comprising:
capturing a vehicle speed of the vehicle travelling in a lane of a roadway;
receiving adjacent vehicle data relating to an adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane;
receiving adjacent lane data including vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane,
wherein the vehicle speed of the adjacent lane data is based on historical speed data associated with the adjacent lane for a same time epoch from a traffic service provider; and
based on the vehicle speed, the adjacent vehicle data, a safe following distance, and the adjacent lane data, generating merger information for a potential merge for the vehicle, wherein the merger information comprises at least a safety rating of the potential merge,
wherein the safety rating of the potential merge is based in part on
a minimum acceleration of the vehicle and
a maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane and merge,
wherein the safety rating is further based at least on a vehicle type of the vehicle, wherein the potential merge comprises the vehicle entering the adjacent lane and subsequently accelerating to the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane while remaining at least the safe following distance ahead of the adjacent vehicle, and
wherein the safe following distance is based on
a predetermined travel-time gap that is based on
(i) the vehicle type including a length of the vehicle, and
(ii) a road condition.
The claim lacks written description for the host “vehicle entering the adjacent lane and subsequently accelerating to the vehicle speed of the one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane”.
In the present disclosure, paragraph 0041 teaches that the host vehicle can determine “the target merging speed” which “may be equal to or above the speed of the adjacent lane 310, such that the target merging acceleration is the amount of acceleration needed by the vehicle 320 in order to reach the speed of the adjacent lane 310 before the adjacent vehicle 330 reaches the vehicle 320 (e.g., assuming the adjacent vehicle is traveling at the speed of the adjacent lane 310 and does not alter speed).” Therefore, the host vehicle 320 has to reach the speed of the lane it is merging into “before the adjacent vehicle 330 reaches the [host] vehicle 320,” not before the host vehicle merges. The host vehicle can merge and then accelerate, or merge while accelerating. The disclosure does not describe the vehicle as first merging and then subsequently accelerating.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as if it was not amended. The other independent claims are substantially similar in this regard, rejected for the same reason, and will be interpreted in the same way.
Claim 26 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The method of Claim 1, wherein
the maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane is determined based on a formula of twice a distance between the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle divided by the vehicle speed subtracted from the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane.
This claim is discussed in paragraph 0044 of the present disclosure in which “the vehicle speed [U2] subtracted from the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane [V1]” is what paragraph 0044 calls V1-U2. The previous paragraph, paragraph 0043, teaches that d1 can be “the distance between the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle originally”. In other words, d1, can be interpreted as an initial distance. Yet in paragraph 0044, d1 appears to be a constantly changing distance, which is just the relative distance between the vehicles, as shown in Fig. 3 and discussed in the first sentence of paragraph 0041. Therefore, d1 can be interpreted as a relative distance. It is a distance between two moving bodies. It is not a distance between the two vehicles “originally”.
Note that the claim recites “twice a distance”. In the formula in paragraph 0043, there is a distance d1, which is the distance between the two vehicles originally (i.e., at the start of the merge), and there is the distance d2, which is the distance it takes the host vehicle to reach the speed of the adjacent vehicle. Thus, if the host vehicle were moving at a speed of zero, the time to close the distance d1 would be all that matters.
It would seem that if both vehicles were moving at the same speed over the same period of time, d1 + d2 in the equation in paragraph 0043 would be “twice a distance” as recited in the present claim. Yet if that were the case, the velocity difference in the denominator of the equation in the present claim would be zero. That would present a mathematical problem. Since the present claim and paragraph 0044 imply that V1 and U2 are different, that is how it will be interpreted for examination purposes.
All of this matters because the claim recites “twice a distance”. Yet it would seem that the maximum time the host vehicle has to accelerate would be the relative distance (d1) divided by the relative speed (V1-U2). Why “twice a distance”? The fact that the relative distance between the vehicles is doubled must be a safety factor, as discussed in paragraph 0042 where it discusses a “margin of safety”.
In this interpretation, the present claim teaches that the time to merge equals the relative distance between the vehicles divided by their relative speed. The result of that calculation is than doubled to obtain a time that includes a safety factor of 2.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither (US2017/0284814 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US2017/0158225 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gaither teaches:
A method of providing merging assistance for a vehicle, the method comprising (see Gaither, Figs. 6 and 7):
capturing a vehicle speed of the vehicle travelling in a lane of a roadway (see Fig. 5 steps 512-516.);
receiving adjacent vehicle data relating to an adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane (see Gaither, paragraph 0071 for a host vehicle receiving “lane obstruction data” using V2V communication. This can include image data of a construction area, for example.);
receiving adjacent lane data including vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane (see Gaither paragraph 0056, for a system that determines that “the HOV lane may be faster than the non-HOV lane” and does so “based on presumed or predicted traffic based on current traffic data and historical traffic data”. Determining that a particular lane is moving faster than another lane based on “current traffic data” meets the limitations of this clause. Furthermore, Gaither paragraph 0056 can reasonably be combined with paragraph 0071 which teaches obtaining “lane obstruction data” via V2V communication. See paragraph 0070 for more on lane obstruction data. According to paragraph 0069, a “lane obstruction” is defined as including when a vehicle is “travelling at a speed significantly lower than the average speed for the particular road”. It can further come from third parties.),
wherein the vehicle speed of the adjacent lane data is based on see Gaither paragraph 0056, for a system that determines that “the HOV lane may be faster than the non-HOV lane” and does so “based on…historical traffic data”. See paragraph 0070 for determining that there may be a lane obstruction “during a period of time”. See also paragraphs 0076 and 0078 for when HOV lanes are effective, including hours of the day and days of the week. See also Fig. 8.); and
Yet Gaither does not explicitly further teach:
based on the vehicle speed, the adjacent vehicle data, a safe following distance, and the adjacent lane data, generating merger information for a potential merge for the vehicle,
wherein the merger information comprises at least a safety rating of [[a]] the potential merge,
wherein the safety rating of the potential merge is based in part on
a minimum acceleration of the vehicle and
a maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane and merge,
wherein the safety rating is further based at least on
a vehicle type of the vehicle, and
wherein the potential merge comprises the vehicle entering the adjacent lane and subsequently accelerating to the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane while remaining at least the safe following distance ahead of the adjacent vehicle,
wherein the safe following distance is based on
a predetermined travel-time gap that is based on
(i) the vehicle type including a length of the vehicle, and
(ii) a road condition.
However, Brown teaches:
based on the vehicle speed, the adjacent vehicle data, a safe following distance, and the adjacent lane data, generating merger information for a potential merge for the vehicle (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0101, which teaches a system to “safely traverse a required distance in an appropriate time to get into the slot 35” and do so while “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow” in the adjacent lane” and then “safely maneuver into the slot 35”),
wherein the merger information comprises at least a safety rating of a potential merge (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 0024 for a host vehicle, vehicle 32, that is merging. The host vehicle 32 can choose to slow down for slot 33 or speed up for slot 35. “The vehicle 32 system 10 disclosed herein provides knowledge of acceleration capabilities of the vehicle 32 to facilitate merging into a slot that is timely available, such as slot 35 in front of a truck 31 and behind a car 39. In other words, a virtual driver, e.g., one or more computers executing programming to control some or all vehicle 32 operations, of the vehicle 32 can determine that the vehicle 32 has sufficient acceleration capability to safely merge the vehicle 32 into slot 35.” See paragraph 0101 for determining if it is safe to merge by determining if the host vehicle “can safely traverse a required distance in an appropriate time to get into slot 35 or alternatively, merge into the slot 33 taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway 29.” When the system can “conclude that the vehicle 32 is fast enough and can generate enough torque to safely maneuver into the slot 35” it will do so.),
wherein the safety rating of the potential merge is based in part on
a minimum acceleration of the vehicle and
a maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane and merge (for both hollow bullets see paragraph 0101 for determining if it is safe to merge by determining if the host vehicle “can safely traverse a required distance in an appropriate time to get into slot 35 or alternatively, merge into the slot 33 taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway 29.” This is done by “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway” in the adjacent lane”. To “safely” merge in the “appropriate time to get into slot 35” while “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway” in the adjacent lane, means that the system reaches the speed of the vehicles in the adjacent lane safely, without getting rear-ended. When the system can “conclude that the vehicle 32 is fast enough and can generate enough torque to safely maneuver into the slot 35” it will do so. The conclusion is based in part, according to paragraph 0036, on the merge system that knows the host vehicle’s “acceleration rate limit” which “refers to a restriction or a vehicle’s acceleration capability.” See paragraphs 0033-0035 for determining acceleration, velocity, and time, which are all related. See paragraph 0110 for knowing how much of a “time period” the host vehicle has to “achieve a slot 35”.),
wherein the safety rating is further based at least on
a vehicle type of the vehicle (see paragraph 0105 for the acceleration profile being based on the types of engines, motors, and powertrains of the car, including if it is gas, turbo, EV, or hybrid. This meets the limitation to at least as much written description as the present disclosure has.), and
wherein the potential merge comprises the vehicle entering the adjacent lane and subsequently accelerating to the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane while remaining at least the safe following distance ahead of the adjacent vehicle (see paragraph 0101 for determining if it is safe to merge by determining if the host vehicle “can safely traverse a required distance in an appropriate time to get into slot 35 or alternatively, merge into the slot 33 taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway 29.” This is done by “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow on the roadway” in the adjacent lane”.),
wherein the safe following distance is based on
a predetermined travel-time gap that is based on (a safe merge implies a safe travel gap. See paragraph 0024 for “merging into a slot that is timely available” in a “safe” manner. See paragraph 0101 for a vehicle that can “safely traverse a required distance in an appropriate time to get into the slot 35”. )
(i) the vehicle type including a length of the vehicle (see paragraphs 0054 and 0058 teaches that a vehicle dynamic capability model can include the host vehicle’s size, such as length and width.), and
(ii) a road condition (see paragraph 0118 for taking into account the “road surface conditions, such as rain or ice” to determine the ability of the vehicle to change lanes and its predicted acceleration. See also paragraph 0064 for determining a coefficient of friction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Gaither, to add the additional features of based on the vehicle speed, the adjacent vehicle data, a safe following distance, and the adjacent lane data, generating merger information for a potential merge for the vehicle, wherein the merger information comprises at least a safety rating of the potential merge, wherein the safety rating of the potential merge is based in part on a minimum acceleration of the vehicle and a maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane and merge, wherein the safety rating is further based at least on a vehicle type of the vehicle, and wherein the potential merge comprises the vehicle entering the adjacent lane and accelerating to the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane while remaining at least the safe following distance ahead of the adjacent vehicle, wherein the safe following distance is based on a predetermined travel-time gap that is based on (i) the vehicle type including a length of the vehicle, and (ii) a road condition, as taught by Brown. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure the host vehicle can safely merge into the desired slot, as recognized by Brown (see paragraph 0024).
In summary, the present claim largely teaches two different systems combined into one. The first is a system that gathers speed data about various lanes at various times, including using historical data about lane speed. The system can then determine what lane the host vehicle should switch into. The second is a system that actually does the switching of lanes. This system uses a safety rating. The examiner is arguing in this rejection that the prior art elements of Gaither teaches the first system and the prior art elements of Brown teaches the second system, and that the two are obvious to combine.
Furthermore, Gaither at least strongly teaches toward some of what Brown more explicitly teaches. For example, Brown explicitly teaches: based on the vehicle speed, the adjacent vehicle data, a safe following distance, and the adjacent lane data, generating merger information for a potential merge for the vehicle. Yet see Gaither paragraph 0073 for an “autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle” that receives the lane information and “switches from the current obstructed lane to a different lane”. It is impossible to reasonably believe that a lane-change assist system like the one discussed in paragraph 0073 does not use a safe following distance, that is inherent in lane-change assist systems. The lane change is potential in at least Fig. 5, step 510 where it determines if an HOV lane is even available and then, if so, considers the fastest route and what information to generate.
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 2, Gaither and Brown teach the method of claim 1.
Gaither further teaches
A method, further comprising
providing a signal relating to the merger information for the vehicle (according to paragraphs 0037 of the specification of the instant application, a signal relating to merger information can comprise a signal to cause the vehicle to merge. This could be—but does not have to be—merging “without driver interaction.” According to paragraphs 0037-0038 the signal may ask for user approval or permit user override. It could be audible or visual. With that in mind, see Gaither Fig. 5 step 516, Fig. 6, step 706. See paragraph 0073 for an “autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle” that receives the lane information and “switches from the current obstructed lane to a different lane”.).
Regarding claim 3, Gaither and Brown teach the method of claim 1.
Yet Gaither does not further teaches
A method, wherein
the merger information comprises at least one of a target merge speed or a merging acceleration based on the adjacent vehicle data, the adjacent lane data, and the vehicle speed.
However, Brown teaches:
the merger information comprises at least one of a target merge speed or a merging acceleration based on the adjacent vehicle data, the adjacent lane data, and the vehicle speed (see Brown paragraph 0101.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Gaither and Brown, to add the additional features of a system and method wherein the merger information comprises at least one of a target merge speed or a merging acceleration based on the adjacent vehicle data, the adjacent lane data, and the vehicle speed, as taught by Niu. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure the host vehicle can safely merge into the desired slot, as recognized by Brown (see paragraph 0024).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 4, Gaither and Brown teach the method of Claim 1.
Gaither further teaches:
A method, further comprising
providing, via a user interface, at least a portion of the merger information (according to paragraphs 0028 of the specification of the instant application, providing information via a user interface can comprise doing so via a touch screen, speaker, or buttons. With that in mind, see Gaither Fig. 5 step 516, Fig. 6, step 706.).
Regarding claim 5, Gaither and Brown teach the method of Claim 1.
Gaither further teaches:
A method, further comprising
updating a driving lane of the vehicle based on the merger information (according to paragraphs 0039 of the specification of the instant application, updating a driving lane may include determining whether merging is possible. The spec. appears to also imply that updating a driving lane means actually changing lanes; that changing lanes is “updating a driving lane.” With that in mind, see Gaither paragraph 0073 for an “autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle” that receives the lane information and “switches from the current obstructed lane to a different lane”.).
Regarding claim 6, Gaither and Brown teach the method of claim 1.
Yet Gaither does not explicitly further teach:
A method, further comprising
altering the minimum acceleration of the vehicle based on the merger information.
However, Brown teaches:
altering the minimum acceleration of the vehicle based on the merger information (in the present published disclosure, paragraph 0039 states that the system is configured for “altering the acceleration of the vehicle based on the merger information. For example, in an instance the apparatus 10 updates the driving lane, the apparatus 10 may also increase the acceleration in order to safely merge into the faster lane. In some embodiments, the acceleration of the vehicle may be at least the minimum acceleration”. With that in mind, see Brown paragraphs 0101-0102 and Fig. 9B. The system of Brown determines of the host vehicle 32 can “safely” merge into slot 35 in “an appropriate amount of time”. If the vehicle “is fast enough” to do so it will, if not it will slow down for slot 33. This is done by “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow” in the adjacent lane that the host vehicle wants to merge into. See paragraph 0110 for the system using the “current driving situation”. See paragraph 0024 for merging into a slot that is “timely available, such as slot 35”. See paragraph 0110 for the system not only performing merges at an entrance to a highway but also “lane change maneuver[s]”. It is unreasonably to think that a system for “taking into account the speed of the traffic flow” would do this at just one time and not update the minimum acceleration of the host vehicle based on the updated speed of the traffic flow. The system runs a computer that provides updates on what is “timely available” in the adjacent lane. The system will then alter the slot availability accordingly, including determining if the host vehicle has the minimum acceleration necessary to make slot 35 in front of the truck.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Gaither and Brown, to add the additional features of altering the minimum acceleration of the vehicle based on the merger information, as taught by Brown. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure the host vehicle can safely merge into the desired slot, as recognized by Brown (see paragraph 0024).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, they are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, it is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, they are substantially similar to claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, they are substantially similar to claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, they are substantially similar to claim 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Gaither and Brown teach the method of Claim 1.
Yet Gaither does not further explicitly teach:
A method wherein
receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data for an adjacent vehicle upstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane and for an adjacent vehicle downstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane.
Yet Brown teaches:
A method wherein
receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data for an adjacent vehicle upstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane and for an adjacent vehicle downstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane (in the present published disclosure, paragraph 0034 teaches that a host vehicle may receive data from an adjacent vehicle via V2V. In some cases, that data is transferred when the adjacent vehicle is within a threshold distance to the host vehicle. With all that in mind, see Brown Fig. 2 for adjacent vehicles 31 and 39 that are upstream and downstream. See paragraph 0094 for obtaining information from V2V.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Gaither and Brown, to add the additional features of receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data for an adjacent vehicle upstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane and for an adjacent vehicle downstream from the vehicle in the adjacent lane, as taught by Brown. The motivation for doing so would be to make sure the host vehicle can safely merge into the desired slot, as recognized by Brown (see paragraph 0024).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Gaither at least strongly teaches toward this claim, making the combination even more obvious. See Gaither paragraph 0056, for a system that determines that “the HOV lane may be faster than the non-HOV lane” and does so “based on presumed or predicted traffic based on current traffic data and historical traffic data”. Furthermore, Gaither paragraph 0056 can reasonably be combined with paragraph 0071 which teaches obtaining “lane obstruction data” via V2V communication. See paragraph 0070 for more on lane obstruction data. According to paragraph 0069, a “lane obstruction” is defined as including when a vehicle is “travelling at a speed significantly lower than the average speed for the particular road”.
Regarding claim 25, Gaither and Brown teach the method of Claim 1.
Gaither further teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein
the vehicle travelling in the lane of the roadway is travelling in traffic (see Gaither, paragraph 0003 for a vehicle wanting to switch from a regular lane to an HOV lane because the HOV lane is faster, especially during peak weekday commuting times. This obviously means there is traffic in current traveling lane.) and
the vehicle speed is slower than the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane (see Gaither, paragraph 0003 for a vehicle wanting to switch from a regular lane to an HOV lane because the HOV lane is faster, especially during peak weekday commuting times. This obviously means there is traffic in current traveling lane.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaither in view of Brown in further view of Su et al. (US2021/0150899 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Gaither and Brown teach the method of Claim 1.
Yet Gaither and Brown do not further teach:
A method wherein
receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data in an instance in which an adjacent vehicle satisfies a certain threshold.
However, Su teaches:
A method wherein
receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data in an instance in which an adjacent vehicle satisfies a certain threshold (see Fig. 3A and paragraph 0032. See paragraph 0092 for the driving recommendations received via V2V being about merging.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Gaither and Brown, to add the additional features of receiving adjacent vehicle data comprises receiving adjacent vehicle data in an instance in which an adjacent vehicle satisfies a certain threshold, as taught by Brown. The motivation for doing so would be to determine where traffic jams are likely to occur, as recognized by Su (see paragraph 0065).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all other rejection can be resolved, such as 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections.
Claim 26 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The method of Claim 1, wherein
the maximum amount of time to reach the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane is determined based on a formula of twice a distance between the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle divided by the vehicle speed subtracted from the vehicle speed of one or more vehicles within the adjacent lane.
A lot of prior art teaches that the time to merge (TTR) or headway time (THW) or time to collision (TTC) is the relative distance divided by the relative velocity of the vehicles. One example of this is Kim (US20180118215). See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0032 for a system that calculate a TTC “based on the detected relative distance information and relative velocity information between the subject vehicle and the other vehicles.” The paragraph teaches that merging can be determined based on this calculation.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Another example is Kwon (KR20120056158A). See the Abstract and figure 4, attached below, for a system that determines the time to merge using relative distances and relative velocities and then determines if contact will occur.
PNG
media_image2.png
366
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yet the prior art does not further teach, as claim 26 does, that the maximum time to merge is “twice” the relative distance divided by the relative velocity. This safety factor of 2 is not in the prior art. Some art teaches having a safety factor, but that safety factor is not specifically set to a factor of 2. For example, Takagi et al. (JP2018184112A), teaches on page 4 of the attached English translation a system that determines a TTC using the relative distance and relative speed. The disclosure also teaches having a “sufficient safety margin” with respect to the TTC and headway time (THW). Yet Takagi does not teach that the safety factor is 2, nor does Takagi or the other prior art teach a range that incorporates 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights