Final Detailed Action
Introduction
1. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
2. This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/084,551 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘551 or the instant application), filed October 29, 2020, which is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,115,313 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘313 or the original patent), issued October 30, 2018 on U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 15/354,057 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘057 or the parent application), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECOGNIZING SURROUNDING VEHICLE”, filed November 17, 2016.1 The original ‘313 patent claims the benefit of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2015-0177846, filed on December 14, 2015.
3. With regard to litigation involving ‘313, see Litigation Search Report of record. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of ‘313 itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any other previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
4. Most recently, a response was filed on August 15, 2025. The response amended claims 14 and 20 and cancelled claims 18-19.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 1-8 and 14-17 and 20 are pending.
Claims 14-17 and 20 are examined.
Claims 14-17 and 20 are objected to and/or rejected as set forth infra.
Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn2.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. Because the effective filing date of claims of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, see prior paragraph 2, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply thereto. See also paragraph 1, supra.
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. See MPEP 2111. It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(11). Therefore, unless Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term, see MPEP §211l.0l(IV), or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
When the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
7. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2007/0043502 to Mudalige et al (hereafter also referred to as Mudalige or ‘502) in view of Draft European Standard ETSI EN 637-2 V1.3.0 (2013-08) (hereinafter also referred to as ETSI), SAE International Surface Vehicle Standard SAE J2735 Revised NOV2009 (hereinafter referred to as SAE), Patent Owners Admissions 8/14/23 (hereinafter referred to as POA) and US Patent Application 2017/0322314 to Yang et al (hereinafter also referred to as Yang or ‘314).
Claim 14
See the entirety of ‘502.
A method, performed by one or more processors of a host vehicle, for recognizing one or more adjacent vehicles, the method comprising:
obtaining information on the adjacent vehicles by wirelessly communicating with the adjacent vehicles while the host vehicle is traveling, the information on the adjacent vehicles comprising location information of the adjacent vehicles,
obtaining a current location of the host vehicle, a radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle at the current location of the host vehicle, and path information of the host vehicle;
See ‘502 at, e.g., Figs., esp. Fig. 1, elements 20, 22, 32, 36, and Fig. 2, elements 32a, 34, 12i, 12c, 12t, 16i, 16, c, 16t, the abstract, and paragraphs [0009]-[0012], [0026]-[0032], [0036] and claims, e.g., claim 1 and claim 29. Therefore, ‘502 describes a method performed by an electronic device/controller device of a host vehicle executing a computer program for recognizing/classifying one or more adjacent vehicles in which location information on the one or more adjacent vehicles is obtained by wireless communication with the adjacent vehicles while the host vehicle is travelling, e.g., via V2V, and current location, e.g. 12c, and path information, e.g., 12t, of the host vehicle is also obtained.
To the extent an electronic device/controller which executes a “computer program” does not explicitly teach a “processor”, ‘314 also describes an electronic device, e.g. a processor, forming part of a lane detection system which device calculates trajectories based on data received wirelessly from adjacent vehicles, see, e.g., Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0113]-[0118] and [0124]. Therefore, if not already, a POSITA would be motivated to employ a processor/electronic controller device as taught by ‘314 with the locator device of ‘502 in order to execute a computer program to implement the method as described by ‘502. The proffered modification is merely combining prior art elements (‘502’s locator electronic device/controller / ‘314’s electronic controller) according to known methods (using a processor) to yield predictable results (executing a program to implement a method). In other words, the prior art obviously teaches or suggests a method employing one or more “processors”.
Continuing, ‘502 as discussed above, e.g. Figs. 3 and 6-8, paragraph [0032] and claims 7-9, describe determining heading, speed, yaw rate and steering wheel angle and trail and IDP polygons/trails/paths for all the vehicles which polygons/trails/paths may be curved. To the extent that ‘502 does not explicitly teach obtaining a radius of curvature of the host vehicle at the current location, see pages 96-97 and 293-294 of SAE ( discussing obtaining a radius of curvature representing a vehicle’s estimated/predicted path from speed and yaw rate) and POA at pages 22-23 (discussing the aforementioned portions of SAE establishing methods to obtain radius of curvature information representing a vehicle’s estimated/predicted path were well known). Therefore, if not already, a POSITA would be motivated to obtain, e.g., calculate using speed and yaw rate, the radius of curvature information of the host vehicle as taught by SAE and POA with the locator device of ‘502 in order to represent the host vehicle’s projected path as described by ‘502. The proffered modification is merely combining prior art elements (‘502’s trail/path/location predictor/SAE’s/POA’s path prediction) according to known methods (using/obtaining an obtained radius of curvature for the host vehicle) to yield predictable results (representing a vehicle’s predicted path).
generating lane information based on the current location of the host vehicle, the radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle, the path information of the host vehicle, and path information of the adjacent vehicles; and
See prior discussion of ‘502, e.g. Figures 2-8 and [0031]. Note also POA, page 26, i.e. 4:19-23 and 5:44-48 of ‘551 with regard to vehicle map.3
[wherein path information on an adjacent vehicle among the adjacent vehicles before a lane change of the adjacent vehicle is used in the generating of the lane information]
determining locations of the adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle based on a width of the generated lane information and width information of the adjacent vehicles,
See ‘502 at, e.g., [0036], [0042] and [0043] and Figures, e.g. the widths of the polygons 38, 40, 42 and 44 are based on the width of the vehicle and those polygons are used to determine the location of adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle, e.g. entering or leaving the host lane and/or in front of or behind a host vehicle. The locations of adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle are also based on a width/lane offsets, of the generated lane information, e.g. lateral offset between -1 and +1 indicates same lane.
wherein the determining of the locations the adjacent vehicles comprises:
determining relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles relative to lanes represented by the generated lane information based on travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and a travel direction of the generated lane information, and4
See 502 at, e.g., Figures 2, 4 and 5 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032], and [0037]-[0044].
the determining of the relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles comprises:
determining if differences between the travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceed a preset threshold value for a predetermined time; and5
See the discussion of claim above, esp. ‘502 at, e.g., paragraphs [0036], [0039] and [0043]-[0044]. In other words, in order to determine whether the remote vehicle is moving in the same, opposite or intersecting path/lane with host vehicle trail/lane and classify the remote vehicle into one of a plurality of lane level and position categories including, e.g. intersecting left and intersecting right, current, trail and IDP coordinates/polygons and headings of the vehicles are used. The determination/classification includes determining whether a merging remote vehicle/IDP polygon 44 of an adjacent vehicle having a heading, e.g. from left or from right, intersects the trail polygon 38/generated lane information of the host vehicle also having a heading as represented by an overlap area A. If such overlap A increases, i.e. exceeds a threshold of 0, over a predetermined time, i.e. t, (i.e. dA/dt >0), a determination of merging or intersecting in heading direction of the remote vehicle is made, e.g., left or right behind merging/intersection into host vehicle lane.
in response to the difference between the travel direction of one of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceeding the preset threshold value for the predetermined time, determining that the one adjacent vehicle is an adjacent vehicle going through an intersection.6
It is noted that the claim does not set forth any specifics of “an intersection”. See discussion of the prior section of this claim. ‘502 describes a determination/classification that the remote vehicle is going through an intersection of two parallel lanes, i.e. merging.7, when dA/dt>0.
Claim 15
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining if differences between a travel direction of the host vehicle and travel directions of the adjacent vehicles exceed a preset threshold value; and
in response to the difference between the travel direction of the host vehicle and the travel direction of one of the adjacent vehicles exceeding the preset threshold value, determining that the one adjacent vehicle is changing between lanes.
See discussion of claim 14, lines 13 et seq., esp. last two sections, e.g. [0043] and [0044], e.g. determines when the overlapping area is decreasing/non-overlapping area is increasing along a particular heading/direction, e.g., exceeds a present threshold value, i.e. <0, indicating remote vehicle departing host vehicle lane to an adjacent lane.
Claim 16
The method of claim 14, wherein the generating of the lane information comprises:
generating forward lane information ahead of the host vehicle using the radius-of- curvature of the host vehicle and the path information of at least one adjacent vehicle that is in front of the host vehicle among the adjacent vehicles.
See the discussion of claim 14 above regarding the radius of curvature, i.e. used to predict/generate vehicle future path/polygon, and ‘502 at, e.g., Figs. 3 and 6, elements 38, 40, 42, 44, 12p, 16t and paragraph [0045] and claim 7, i.e. modification of host vehicle projected path with trail information of lead vehicle.
Claim 17
The method of claim 16, wherein the generating of the forward lane information comprises:
estimating basic lane information ahead of the host vehicle using the radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle; and
generating the forward lane information by modifying the estimated basic lane information using the path information of the at least one adjacent vehicle that is in front of the host vehicle.
See discussion of claim 16, i.e. future path coordinates determined and then matched with/congruently related to corresponding trail coordinates of adjacent vehicle in front of host vehicle.
Claim 20
A vehicle recognition apparatus in a host vehicle for recognizing one or more adjacent vehicles, the vehicle recognition apparatus comprising:
a wireless communication module configured to wirelessly communicate with the adjacent vehicles to receive information on the adjacent vehicles, the information on the adjacent vehicles comprising location information of the adjacent vehicles; and
a processor configured to:
obtain a current location of the host vehicle, a radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle at the current location of the host vehicle, and path information of the host vehicle,
generate lane information using the current location of the host vehicle, the radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle, the path information of the host vehicle, and path information of the adjacent vehicles, and
determine locations of the adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle based on a width of the generated lane information and width information of the adjacent vehicles,
wherein, in order to determine the locations the adjacent vehicles, the processor is further configured to:
determine relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles relative to lanes represented by the generated lane information based on travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and a travel direction of the generated lane information, and
in order to determine the relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles, the processor is further configured to:
determine relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles determining if differences between the travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceed a preset threshold value for a predetermined time; and
in response to the difference between the travel direction of one of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceeding the preset threshold value for the predetermined time, determine that the one adjacent vehicle is an adjacent vehicle going through an intersection.
[wherein path information on an adjacent vehicle among the adjacent vehicles before a lane change of the adjacent vehicle is used to generate the lane information].
See discussion of claim 14.
Response to Arguments
8. The remarks on pages 1 and 9-44 of the 8/15/2025 Response (“Response”) have been considered in their entirety. Specifically:
The remarks regarding the claim status and Election of Species on page 9 of the Response have been noted.
The remarks on pages 9-16 regarding claim amendments and Statement of Support claims, specifically of claims 1-8, have been noted. The remarks on the remainder of page 16 and pages 17-32 of the Response regarding support for claims 14-17 and 20 have also been considered.
The remarks on 32 -33 regarding the declaration and claim interpretation have been noted.
The remarks of pages 33-34 with regard to the rejection of claims 14-18 and 20 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based are noted. The rejection has not been maintained.
The remarks on pages 34-35 have been noted. The Response’s remarks on page 35 with regard to MPEP 707.07(g) are not persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims filed April 15, 2022, August 29, 2022, February 23, 2023 and August 14, 2023.
On pages 35-42, the Response asserts four features are not disclosed or taught by the prior art combination.
Feature 1:
With regard to the claim feature “generating lane information based on the current location of the host vehicle, the radius-of-curvature of the host vehicle, the path information of the host vehicle, and path information of the adjacent vehicles” (emphasis original), the Response merely concludes “[[t]he Office has not identified any information in Mudalige '502 that it considers to correspond to the ‘lane information’ recited in the above feature of claim 14. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to this feature of claim 14.” (Emphasis original.)
However, the portions of the prior art identified by the Action (e.g. Figures 2-8 and [0031], like the portions of ‘313 identified for support (4:19-23 and 5:44-48), disclose or teach, lane information is generated on vehicle map record 32a by matching current position, IDP and trail coordinates 12t, 12i, 12c and 16 t, 16i, 16c to corresponding points on the map record 32 (corresponding lane information points) to be shown on/generated by the map record, see Fig. 2as well as Figs. 3-8. Accordingly, the Response’s conclusion is not persuasive.
Feature 2:
With regard to the claim feature “determining locations of the adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle based on a width of the generated lane information and width information of the adjacent vehicles” (emphasis original), the Response concludes “[t]he Office has not identified any information in Mudalige '502 that it considers to correspond to ‘a width of the generated lane information’ recited in the above feature of claim 14. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to this feature of claim 14.” (Emphasis original.) Relying on reiterations of [0036], on Fig. 4 and [0040]-[0041], on Fig. 5 and [0042] and on Figs. 7-8 and [0046] and [0047] respectively, the Response further respectively concludes “Mudalige '502 can reasonably be considered to correspond to the ‘lane information’ or the ‘width of the generated lane information’ recited in claim 14.”
As an initial matter, the Response does not address the Office Action discussion, e.g. “The locations of adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle are also based on a width/lane offsets of the generated lane information, e.g. lateral offset between -1 and +1 indicates same lane.” See also, e.g., Fig 2, element 32a (below) and coordinates/lanes generated thereon, the discussion of Feature 1 above, Fig. 5 and coordinates/lanes thereof (as annotated) below and [0042] (i.e. “…relative lane position can alternatively be determined by computing a lateral offset between the trails and current position coordinates of the host and remote vehicles 12,16…shown in FIG. 5, thresholds can be used to define lane offsets. For example, a lateral offset between negative one and positive one may indicate that the host and remote vehicles 12,16 share the same lane (negative one to negative two may indicate a remote vehicle [AltContent: connector]within the left adjacent lane, and positive one to two for the right adjacent lane, etc.).”
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector] [AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
8
8
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The middle lane (M) is the lane of the host vehicle, the top lane (T) is the lane of the remote/adjacent vehicle and laterally offset from lane M and bottom lane (B) has been added for discussion purposes and is also laterally offset from lane M. The solid black arrows denote the lane widths or the distance between the lane thresholds. A lateral offset between the trails and current position coordinates of the host and remote vehicles (e.g., somewhere within the range of the small dashed white arrows) determined/computed as being between thresholds -1 and +1 as described indicates/defines the remote vehicle is in the same lane (M) as the host vehicle indicated by the middle black arrow, a lateral offset between the trails and current position coordinates of the host and remote vehicles (see, e.g., dashed gray arrow) determined/computed between thresholds -1 and -2 indicates/defines the remote vehicle is in the left adjacent lane (T) indicated by the top black arrow and a lateral offset between the trails and current position coordinates of the host and remote vehicles (see, e.g., dashed striped arrow) determined/computed between thresholds +1 and +2 indicates/defines the remote vehicle is within right adjacent lane (B). Accordingly, locations of the adjacent vehicles relative to the host vehicle are determined based on a width of the generated lane information and the Response’s assertions/reiterations are not persuasive.
Feature 3:
With regard to the claim feature “determining if differences between the travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceed a preset threshold value for a predetermined time.” (emphasis original), the Response concludes (after citing the Non-Final Office Action (NFOA), pages 14-15, “Claim 19”):
“However, the Office has not explained where Mudalige '502 discloses determining differences between the travel directions of the remote vehicles 16 and the travel direction of the generated lane information.” and
“As discussed above in connection with Feature 1 of independent claim 14, the Office has not even Office has not identified any information in Mudalige '502 that it considers to correspond to the ‘lane information’ recited in claim 14.”
“Furthermore, Mudalige '502 does not determine whether the rate of change dA/dt in the overlap area A exceeds a threshold of 0 for a predetermined time. Rather, if dA/dt > 0, this simply means that the remote vehicle 16 is merging into the same lane as the host vehicle 12. Also, if dA/dt < 0, this simply means that the remote vehicle 16 is departing from the same lane as the host vehicle 12.”
(Emphasis original.)
However, with regard to 1) and 2), for the reasons set forth with regard to Feature 1 above and the explanation with regard to the limitation “ wherein the determining of the locations the adjacent vehicles comprises: determining relative travel directions of the adjacent vehicles relative to lanes represented by the generated lane information based on travel directions of the adjacent vehicles and a travel direction of the generated lane information” in the NFOA (page 14, “Claim 18”), these assertions are deemed not persuasive.
With regard to 3), it is unclear what the Response is asserting, e.g. that’502 does not describe or suggest determining a preset threshold value is exceeded for a predetermined time and/or is merging, not passing through an intersection? To the extent understood, in light of the discussion of this feature above with regard to the portions of claim 14 incorporated from now cancelled claims 18-198 and the discussion below of Figure
Feature 4:
With regard to the claim feature “in response to the difference between the travel direction of one of the adjacent vehicles and the travel direction of the generated lane information exceeding the preset threshold value for the predetermined time, determining that the one adjacent vehicle is an adjacent vehicle going through an intersection”, the Response, relying on section 3.137 appearing in SAE, concludes … it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the present art would know that an intersection is where two streets intersect. …FIGS. 1-8 of Mudalige '502 do not show any intersections. With respect to the Office's statement that ‘‘502 describes a determination/classification that the remote vehicle is going through an intersection of two parallel lanes, i.e. merging. , when dA/dt>0," parallel lanes by definition cannot intersect.”
These assertions are narrower than the claim language “through an intersection” While such claim language may include an intersection where two streets intersect a s argued, it also may include parallel lanes which intersect/share a border, e.g. the dashed center line in Figure 5 and Figure 2, through which intersection/ shared border a vehicle goes through when, e.g. merging from one lane to the other as described by the prior art, i.e.’502.
Since the Response asserts “at least the same reasons discussed above” with regard to claim 1 also with regard to claim 20, attentions is again invited to the discussion of the four features above.
Conclusion
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,115,313 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Inquiries:
All correspondence relating to this proceeding may be submitted via:
Electronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii) states that correspondence (except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be considered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating the date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.
/Karin Reichle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The term of the patent was extended or adjusted by 0 days.
2 See 9/21/22 Office Action, paragraph 7.
3 Attention is also again invited to ‘502 at, e.g., [0044], i.e. lane information of an adjacent vehicle relative to a host vehicle (while on straight or curved thoroughfares) is dynamically generated/calculated, e.g. same lane, adjacent lane.
4 This was previously claimed in no cancelled claim 18.
5 This was previously claimed in claim 19.
6 See footnote 5.
7 Note also SAE at page 296, Fig. 7, esp. lower right hand corner.
8 “See 502 at, e.g., Figures 2, 4 and 5 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032], and [0037]-[0044].” and “See the discussion of claim above, esp. ‘502 at, e.g., paragraphs [0036], [0039] and [0043]-[0044]. In other words, in order to determine whether the remote vehicle is moving in the same, opposite or intersecting path/lane with host vehicle trail/lane and classify the remote vehicle into one of a plurality of lane level and position categories including, e.g. intersecting left and intersecting right, current, trail and IDP coordinates/polygons and headings of the vehicles are used. The determination/classification includes determining whether a merging remote vehicle/IDP polygon 44 of an adjacent vehicle having a heading, e.g. from left or from right, intersects the trail polygon 38/generated lane information of the host vehicle also having a heading as represented by an overlap area A. If such overlap A increases, i.e. exceeds a threshold of 0, over a predetermined time, i.e. t, (i.e. dA/dt >0), a determination of merging or intersecting in heading direction of the remote vehicle is made, e.g., left or right behind merging/intersection into host vehicle lane.