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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/20/2025, with respect to claims 13 and 25 objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 13 and 25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13 and 15-27 rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 of claims 13 and 15-27 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13, 15-16, and 20-25 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) in regards to the newly amended limitations pertaining to a reference longitudinal distance have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of under 35 USC 103 over Keller et al. (20180043890; hereinafter Keller, already of record) in view of Yoo et al. (20190263401; hereinafter Yoo).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Keller failing to describe predictions of time to line crossing of a second vehicle, Keller recites:
“The control system may output the signal when the computed overall likelihood exceeds a predetermined threshold value” ¶ 20
“the control system may be configured and intended for detecting, over a predetermined time period or continuously, the other motor vehicle using the road, by means of the at least one surroundings sensor, in order to determine the lateral movement of the other motor vehicle” ¶ 23,
“lateral movement of the other motor vehicle during the predetermined time period or continuously, a change in a distance between a longitudinal axis of the other motor vehicle and a centerline, at least one lane boundary, or at least one lane marker of the lane in which the other motor vehicle or the host motor vehicle is present may be determined” ¶ 49
“The lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 is ultimately ascertained via the change in a distance of a vehicle longitudinal axis from the virtual centerline 32 during a predetermined time period” ¶ 115
“The control system of the host motor vehicle 10 is thus already able, at an early point in time, to recognize a likely lane change by the other motor vehicle 20 and to take appropriate measures or prepare for appropriate measures” ¶ 122
Wherein it can be seen that Keller monitors the behavior of the second vehicle to determine a likelihood of a vehicle cut-in maneuver based on the second vehicle’s behavior in regards to a virtual centerline or lane boundary, and comparing the time to cross with a predefined threshold to initiate vehicle control or alerting. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claimed limitation “wherein the determining further comprises computing a time to line crossing and then comparing the time to line crossing with a predefined threshold” does not specify that the time to line crossing within the invention must be done before the second vehicle begins a cut-in maneuver as argued by Applicant. Nonetheless, Keller discloses the second vehicle’s cut-in maneuver monitoring as crossing a lane boundary, which may include the second vehicle actively changing lanes, or the second vehicle crossing a virtual centerline, which may include the second vehicle is still within its current lane boundaries and thus has not yet begun actively changing lanes.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (20180043890; hereinafter Keller, already of record) in view of Yoo et al. (20190263401; hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 13, Keller teaches a method for automated management of a longitudinal speed of a first vehicle in a first lane, the method comprising (Keller: Abstract):
detecting, with an object detecting sensor, a second vehicle traveling in a second lane adjacent to the first lane (Keller: Fig. 1 Elements 16, 20, 22, 24, “the control system recognizes preceding motor vehicles and preferably stationary objects situated ahead, based on surroundings data obtained from at least one surroundings sensor associated with the host motor vehicle ” ¶ 14),
determining, with processing circuitry, an intention of the second vehicle to perform a cut-in maneuver into the first lane (Keller: “the control system is at least configured and intended for computing a movement-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle” ¶ 14),
estimating, with the processing circuitry, a corrected longitudinal distance, said corrected longitudinal distance corresponding to a longitudinal distance that will separate the first vehicle from the second vehicle at a conclusion of the cut-in maneuver (Keller: Fig. 2, “determining a distance between the other motor vehicle and an additional motor vehicle or object located in front of the other motor vehicle, as well as a speed difference between the other motor vehicle and the additional motor vehicle or object located in front of the other motor vehicle” ¶ 29, “The lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 is ultimately ascertained via the change in a distance of a vehicle longitudinal axis from the virtual centerline 32 during a predetermined time period” ¶ 115), said corrected longitudinal distance being computed based on a longitudinal distance measured between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, and based on a relative longitudinal speed measured between the second vehicle and the first vehicle (Keller: “the control system may also determine, over a predetermined time period or continuously, changes in the above-described relative distances and speed differences” ¶ 34, “determining a lateral movement of the other motor vehicle relative to a lane in which the other motor vehicle or the host motor vehicle is present” ¶ 39),
computing, with the processing circuitry, a longitudinal speed setpoint for the first vehicle based on the corrected longitudinal distance (Keller: “an autonomous speed adaptation by the host motor vehicle” ¶ 20, “The control system may be configured and intended for determining at least one target position, one target speed, one target acceleration, and/or one target driving dynamic of the host motor vehicle” ¶ 67),
...
regulating. by the vehicle control circuitry, an operational speed of the first vehicle (Keller: “the control system generates a signal in step S122 in order to warn a driver of the host motor vehicle of a likely lane change by the other motor vehicle and/or to carry out an autonomous speed adaptation by the host motor vehicle” ¶ 130)...
wherein the determining further comprises computing a time to line crossing and then comparing the time to line crossing with a predefined threshold (Keller: “The control system may output the signal when the computed overall likelihood exceeds a predetermined threshold value” ¶ 20 “the control system may be configured and intended for detecting, over a predetermined time period or continuously, the other motor vehicle using the road, by means of the at least one surroundings sensor, in order to determine the lateral movement of the other motor vehicle” ¶ 23, “lateral movement of the other motor vehicle during the predetermined time period or continuously, a change in a distance between a longitudinal axis of the other motor vehicle and a centerline, at least one lane boundary, or at least one lane marker of the lane in which the other motor vehicle or the host motor vehicle is present may be determined” ¶ 49, see also ¶ 115, 122),
wherein the regulating, by the vehicle control circuitry, an operation speed of the first vehicle is configured to change the operational speed of the first vehicle at a rate which is comfortable for a passenger of the first vehicle (Keller: “the described control system of the host motor vehicle increases driving comfort by likewise taking into account the driving dynamics of the host motor vehicle in determining the trajectory ... Driving dynamics are understood here to mean, for example, the longitudinal acceleration and the lateral acceleration of the host motor vehicle” ¶ 57, see also ¶ 64).
While Keller discloses regulation an operation speed of the first vehicle and of a target position, Keller remains silent regarding computing, with the processing circuitry, a reference longitudinal distance from the longitudinal speed setpoint, transmitting, from the processing circuitry, the reference longitudinal distance to a vehicle control circuitry, ... such that the reference longitudinal distance and the measured longitudinal distance are equalized. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yoo teaches the claim limitation of a reference longitudinal distance and controlling such that the reference longitudinal distance and the measured longitudinal distance are equalized (Yoo: “the processor 120 may define a safety distance between an external vehicle and the first vehicle 10 to be longer as a risk of the external vehicle increases, and when the external vehicle enters the safety distance, may plan the traveling path of changing lanes of the first vehicle 10 or decelerating or accelerating the speed of the first vehicle 10” ¶ 43). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the automated speed system of Keller so that it also includes the element of a reference distance, as taught by Yoo, in order to improve vehicle safety during maneuvers (Yoo: ¶ 43, 67).
Regarding claim 15, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 14, wherein said corrected longitudinal distance computed in the estimating depends on the measured longitudinal distance, on the measured relative longitudinal distance (Keller: “a change in the distance between a longitudinal axis of the other motor vehicle and a virtual or real lane marker or lane boundary on which the host motor vehicle is present” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 49) and on the time to crossing (Keller: “The lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 is ultimately ascertained via the change in a distance of a vehicle longitudinal axis from the virtual centerline 32 during a predetermined time period” ¶ 115).
Regarding claim 16, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 15, wherein said corrected longitudinal distance computed in the estimating is equal to a sum of the measured longitudinal distance and a product of the measured relative longitudinal speed and the time to crossing (Keller: Fig. 2, “Based on the change in the average lateral distance dlateral and the lateral speed vlateral over the predetermined time period, the control system ultimately determines the lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 relative to the lane 16 ... the control system computes a movement-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle 20 by use of a support vector machine. It is understood that other mathematical methods are also possible for computing the movement-based likelihood of a lane change based on the determined lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20” ¶ 120, Note: It is noted that a similar outcome is achieved regardless of mathematical concept used, as it has not been disclosed that a particular concept provides substantial benefit over any other concept. It appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the concept outlined in Keller.).
Regarding claim 20, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 13, further comprising:
computing a first reference longitudinal speed based on the corrected longitudinal distance (Keller: “detects an average lateral distance dlateral of a longitudinal axis L of the other motor vehicle 20 from the virtual centerline 32 of the lane 16, and a lateral speed vlateral of the other motor vehicle 20 ... average lateral distance dlateral and the lateral speed vlateral over the predetermined time period, the control system ultimately determines the lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 relative to the lane 16 ” ¶ 120),
detecting at least one third vehicle in traffic around the first vehicle (Keller: Fig. 2, “to distinguish between the other motor vehicle and the additional motor vehicles/objects, in another embodiment the control system may first carry out step S202, in which the control system recognizes preceding motor vehicles and objects traveling ahead, as well as surrounding features in the area in front of the host motor vehicle” ¶ 131), and
computing at least one second reference longitudinal speed based on a speed of the at least one third vehicle (Keller: “Essentially in parallel with the operation described above, in step S110 the control system determines a distance as well as a speed difference between the other motor vehicle and an additional motor vehicle or object located in front of the other motor vehicle” ¶ 126),
wherein the longitudinal speed setpoint computed in the third step is equal to a minimum of the first reference longitudinal speed and the at least one second reference longitudinal speed (Keller: Fig. 8, “the control system generates a signal in step S122 in order to warn a driver of the host motor vehicle of a likely lane change by the other motor vehicle and/or to carry out an autonomous speed adaptation by the host motor vehicle and/or to carry out an autonomous driving maneuver by the host motor vehicle” ¶ 130, see also ¶ 146).
Regarding claim 21, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 20, wherein the second vehicle and the at least one third vehicle are situated ahead of the first vehicle (Keller: Fig. 8 Elements 34, 82).
Regarding claim 22, Keller in view of Yoo teaches a device for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of a vehicle, the device comprising hardware and/or software elements configured to implement the method as claimed in claim 13 (Keller: “an electronic controller (not shown) of a control system (not shown) installed in the host motor vehicle 10” ¶ 110).
Regarding claim 23, Keller in view of Yoo teaches a motor vehicle comprising the device for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of a vehicle as claimed in claim 22 (Keller: “The host motor vehicle 10” ¶ 110).
Regarding claim 24, Keller in view of Yoo teaches a non-transitory computer-readable data recording medium on which is recorded a computer program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute the method as claimed in claim 13 (Keller: “an electronic controller (not shown) of a control system (not shown) installed in the host motor vehicle 10” ¶ 110).
Regarding claim 25, Keller teaches ...
wherein said corrected longitudinal distance computed in the estimating is equal to a sum of the measured longitudinal distance and a product of the measured relative longitudinal speed and the time to line crossing (Keller: “detects an average lateral distance dlateral of a longitudinal axis L of the other motor vehicle 20 from the virtual centerline 32 of the lane 16, and a lateral speed vlateral of the other motor vehicle 20 ... average lateral distance dlateral and the lateral speed vlateral over the predetermined time period, the control system ultimately determines the lateral movement of the other motor vehicle 20 relative to the lane 16 ... features of the other motor vehicle 20 other than the longitudinal axis L may be used by the control system as a reference for detecting the lateral distance and/or the lateral speed” ¶ 120, see also ¶ 121, 126, 137).
In regards to the remainder of claim 25, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 17-19 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Akella et al. (20200117200; hereinafter Akella, already of record).
Regarding claim 17, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 13 (Keller: Abstract), wherein the detecting comprises detecting visual indicators on the second vehicle (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Akella) signaling a cut-in maneuver (Keller: “determined instantaneous traffic situation in the surroundings of the other motor vehicle 20 and in front of the host motor vehicle 10, the control system of the host motor vehicle 10 can compute the traffic situation-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle 20” ¶ 122).
While Keller remains silent regarding detecting visual indicators on the second vehicle, in a similar field of endeavor, Akella teaches the claim limitation of detecting visual indicators on the second vehicle (Akella: “the sensor data 110 indicates that the second additional vehicle 104b has a turn signal indicating a right turn”). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the detection system of Keller so that it also includes the element of detecting visual indicators on the second vehicle, as taught by Akella, in order to improve cut-in determination.
Regarding claim 18, Keller in view of Yoo in further view of Akella teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 17 (Keller: Abstract), wherein the visual indicators include detecting use of flashing lights (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Akella).
While Keller remains silent regarding the visual indicators include detecting use of flashing lights, in a similar field of endeavor, Akella teaches the claim limitation of detecting flashing lights (Akella: “the sensor data 110 indicates that the second additional vehicle 104b has a turn signal indicating a right turn”). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the detection system of Keller so that it also includes the element of detecting flashing lights, as taught by Akella, in order to improve cut-in determination.
Regarding claim 19, Keller in view of Yoo teaches the method for the automated management of the longitudinal speed of the first vehicle as claimed in claim 13, further comprising comparing the speed of the first vehicle and the speed of the second vehicle (Keller: “the control system can determine a comparatively low traffic situation-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle when an offset motor vehicle or object, for example having a speed difference similar to, or situated at a small distance from, the other motor vehicle, is present in the target lane” ¶ 30, see also ¶ 95), wherein:
the longitudinal speed setpoint computed in said computing is a strong deceleration setpoint (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Akella) when the speed of the second vehicle is strictly less than the speed of the first vehicle (Keller: “comparatively low traffic situation-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle when the motor vehicle located behind the other motor vehicle has, for example, a significantly higher speed and is situated at a small distance from the other motor vehicle” ¶ 31), and
the longitudinal speed setpoint computed in said computing is a weak deceleration setpoint (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Akella) when the speed of the second vehicle is strictly greater than the speed of the first vehicle (Keller: “the speed difference between the other motor vehicle and the motor vehicle present in front of the other motor vehicle is small, the control system may compute that at that moment there is only a low traffic situation-based likelihood of a lane change by the other motor vehicle” ¶ 29).
While Keller remains silent regarding the longitudinal speed setpoint computed in said computing is a strong deceleration setpoint ... the longitudinal speed setpoint computed in said computing is a weak deceleration setpoint, in a similar field of endeavor, Akella teaches the claim limitation of a strong deceleration and a weak deceleration (Akella: “the vehicle 102 may be controlled to maintain a greater distance behind the first additional vehicle 104a at relatively higher speeds and a smaller distance at relatively slower speeds” ¶ 60, “the acceleration determination system 228 may output a first acceleration associated with the vehicle 104a, a second acceleration associated with the second vehicle 104b, and a third acceleration associated with the pedestrian 106” ¶ 35, see also ¶ 70, , Note: It is also noted that Keller recites adapting speed/acceleration appropriately to the other vehicle, such as in paragraph 65, but does not explicitly discuss the magnitude of the adapting). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the control system of Keller so that it also includes the element of strong and weak decelerations, as taught by Akella, in order to improve vehicle safety and comfort (Akella: ¶ 23).
In regards to claim(s) 26 and 27, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 17 and 18, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kumano et al. (20200406920) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663