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 .
Claim Status
Claims 13 and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-12 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 13 and 15-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Keller et al. (20180043890; hereinafter Keller, already of record) in view of Yoo et al. (20190263401; hereinafter Yoo, already of record) fails to disclose of the claimed regulating an operational speed of the first vehicle such that the reference longitudinal distance and the (newly amended) corrected longitudinal distance are equalized.
Additionally, as established in the prior Office Action of record, Yoo is utilized as a secondary reference to teach of the claimed reference longitudinal distance; however, the Applicant argues that Yoo utilizes vehicle mass and speed to determine the reference longitudinal difference, unlike the claimed limitation which takes into consideration positions of vehicles. Currently as
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently claimed, independent claims 13 and 25 recite (or limitations analogous to) “computing, with the processing circuitry, a reference longitudinal distance from the longitudinal speed setpoint”. Wherein it can be seen that a reference longitudinal distance is computed from the longitudinal speed setpoint, which is taught by 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 ... The safety distance may refer, for example, to a necessary distance of a vehicle to avoid a collision with a front vehicle traveling in the same direction when the front vehicle suddenly stops. According to an embodiment, the safety distance may vary depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle” ¶ 43.
As such, it can be seen that Keller in view of Yoo does teach of a reference longitudinal distance and regulating the speed such that the reference longitudinal distance and the corrected longitudinal distance are equalized. Additionally, the amendments change the scope of the claims as they now require the established corrected longitudinal distance to be used in the regulating step, whereas previously the regulating step relied on a measured longitudinal distance. A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 25 currently recite (or limitations analogous to):
“ ...
regulating, by the vehicle control circuitry, an operational speed of the first vehicle such that the reference longitudinal distance and the corrected longitudinal distance are equalized,
wherein the determining further comprises computing a time to line crossing and then comparing the time to line crossing with a predefined threshold,
wherein the regulating, by the vehicle control circuitry, an operational 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.”
Wherein the Examiner believes there is a typographical error wherein “an operational speed” is referenced twice. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the second recitation of “an operational speed” as “the operational speed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, already of record).
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, 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: Fig. 2, “The other motor vehicle 20 and the additional motor vehicle 22 located in front of the other motor vehicle 20 are present in the same lane 16, which is adjacent to the passing lane 12 in which the host motor vehicle 10 is present ... whereby the lane of the offset motor vehicle 24 represents the target lane for a lane change by the other motor vehicle 20. Likewise at the same time, the control system of the host motor vehicle 10 determines a distance dbehind, offset and a speed difference Δvbehind, offset between the other motor vehicle 20 and the host motor vehicle 10 that is behind the other motor vehicle, which is present in the passing lane 12, and thus, the target lane for a lane change by the other motor vehicle 20” ¶ 121),
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 operational 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).
Although Keller discloses estimating distances after a predicted lane change, lane change likelihoods, and speed regulation, as seen above, 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 corrected longitudinal distance are equalized.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yoo teaches computing, with the processing circuitry, a reference longitudinal distance from the longitudinal speed setpoint (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 ... The safety distance may refer, for example, to a necessary distance of a vehicle to avoid a collision with a front vehicle traveling in the same direction when the front vehicle suddenly stops. According to an embodiment, the safety distance may vary depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle” ¶ 43),
transmitting, from the processing circuitry, the reference longitudinal distance to a vehicle control circuitry (Yoo: “The communicator 130 may transmit the obtained identification information of the at least one external vehicle to the processor 120. The processor 120 may determine the risk of the at least one external vehicle based on the identification information of the at least one external vehicle” ¶ 42), ...
[regulating ... ] such that the reference longitudinal distance and the corrected longitudinal distance are equalized (Yoo: “the device 100 may plan the traveling path of the first vehicle 10 in further consideration of, for example, and without limitation, a traveling lane of the at least one external vehicle, a traveling speed of the at least one external vehicle, a distance between the first vehicle 10 and the at least one external vehicle” ¶ 71, “when the distance between the first vehicle 10 and the second vehicle is less than the safety distance of the high risk vehicle, the device 100 may determine that the traveling speed of the first vehicle 10 increases” ¶ 94, see also ¶ 92).
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 and equalizing the reference longitudinal distance and the corrected longitudinal 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),
...
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).
However, Keller remains silent regarding wherein the detecting comprises detecting visual indicators on the second vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor, Akella teaches wherein the detecting comprises 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), ...
However, Keller remains silent regarding wherein the visual indicators include detecting use of flashing lights.
In a similar field of endeavor, Akella teaches wherein the visual indicators include detecting use of 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:
...
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
...
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).
However, 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 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 (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. Hada et al. (20170203690) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle proximity control.
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.
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 /TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights