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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 7/10/2025 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant argues that the 35 USC 103 rejections to the claims should not be maintained in view of “Foster does not address the generation and stability of lane models or the use of previously saved models as a fallback mechanism. Munning does not correct this critical deficiency of Foster. Munning does not address the generation of different lane models based on measurement data, and does not discuss using an older lane model as a fallback in situations where a more recent model is deemed unstable.” This argument is persuasive. Therefore, a new ground of rejection is 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 1-20 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 claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 1, 9, and 10 the specification does not describe in a clear, concise, and exact terms what a trigger incident is or how it is received. The trigger incident described in paragraphs [0012 and 0059] are directed to end results and do not provide clear and exacts terms on what a trigger incident is or how the trigger incident is received. Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-20 depending from claims 1, 9, and 10 are therefore rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “trigger incident”. There in insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how one skilled in the art would know what the trigger incident is and how to receive the trigger incident. Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11-20 depending from claims 1, 9, and 10 are therefore rejected.
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 12039445 B2) in view of Barth (US 20210291818 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches A method for performing an evasive maneuver using a control device, the method comprising the following steps: (Claim 1 A computer-implemented method Col 1 Line 34-36 Such collected data are then analyzed in real-time to detect obstacles which can then be used to control the vehicle in obstacle avoidance.)
generating a first lane model based on received measurement data of surroundings of a vehicle from at least one sensor; (Claim 1 receiving, by a computing system, a data package that includes a set of sensor data captured at an environment;)
saving the first lane model; (Claim 11 a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:)
subsequent to the saving of the first lane model, obtaining further received measurement data of the surroundings of the vehicle; (Col 2 Line 36-39 A second of the plurality of types of sensor data are then obtained from at least one of a second type of the plurality of sensors and are used to generate validation base data)
determining whether a second lane model generated or generatable using the further received measurement data is categorizable as stable; (Col 11 Line 50-53 A change in the earlier decision may cause a change to the label for the earlier data, which may thus affect the training data and subsequently the quality of the models trained using such labeled data.)
responsive to a result of the determination being that the second lane model is not categorizable as stable (Claim 1 a second subset of the sensor data associated with second confidence scores that fail to satisfy the confidence threshold;),
Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses ascertaining an incident corridor, which is a corridor within which the evasive maneuver is possible within a time interval, based on the saved first lane model; ([0048] In order to perform the combined steering and braking procedure, after an impending collision K is detected the emergency evasion control unit 70 first of all calculates an initial evasion trajectory AT_0, along which the commercial vehicle-trailer combination 100 is to be guided from a starting traffic lane 300 a to a target traffic lane 300 b in order to evade the collision object 200 in an evasive maneuver AWM)
based on the ascertainment of the incident corridor, planning an evasion path within the ascertained incident corridor; and ([0048] An exemplary initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is illustrated in FIG. 2a as a finely dashed line.)
generating, on receipt of a trigger incident within the time interval, control commands for longitudinal guidance and/or transverse guidance of the vehicle for traveling along the evasion path; ([0041] In this case, the desired vehicle deceleration that is specified to the electronic braking system is limited in such a manner that a total acceleration of the vehicle-trailer combination, which is derived from a vectorial sum of the longitudinal acceleration, in other words the desired vehicle deceleration, and the lateral acceleration, does not exceed a maximum total acceleration.)
wherein the ascertaining of the incident corridor is performed by executing an algorithm that defines that when the result of the determination is that the second lane model is categorizable as stable, the second lane model is used for the ascertainment of the incident corridor ([0054] It is possible under these boundary conditions to unambiguously determine the coefficients ci by triggering a linear system of equations, whereby the initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is established between the start point P1 and the end point P2. [0061] It is intended in this manner that not only is the primary impending crash prevented but secondary accidents, such as the vehicle-trailer combination 100 tipping over or becoming unstable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first lane model is adapted to a current time based on the further received measurement data, the further received measurement data including measurement data relating to a vehicle movement. (Col 31 Line 66-67 – Col 32 Line 1-17 FIG. 24 is a flowchart of an exemplary process for a model update center, according to an embodiment of the present teaching. Labeled events of interest received by the model update center are first classified at 2405. Based on such classified labeled training data, the benchmark testing data generator 2130 generates, at 2410, benchmark testing data to be used for testing for each of the models to be updated. To proceed with the update process, it is determined, at 2415, whether the model to be updated involves the global models (corresponding to global models 410). If the global models are to be updated, appropriate labeled training data, including both historic training data and the newly received training data, are used to re-train, at 2420, the global models. The re-trained global models are then tested, at 2425, using benchmark testing data selected for testing the global models. If the testing result is satisfactory, determined at 2430, the global models are updated at 2435. If the testing result is not satisfactory, the processing goes back to 2420 to re-train (e.g., iteratively) the global models.)
Regarding claim 3, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the saving of the first lane model or the ascertainment of the incident corridor using the first lane model after the further received measurement data has been obtained is conditioned on that an evasion assist function was active in a time period at which the first lane model was generated. (Claim 1 causing control of a vehicle in the environment based on at least one of the local class models.)
Regarding claim 4, Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses The method as recited in claim 1, wherein first lane model is used to ascertain the incident corridor conditional on that the distance traveled is less than the virtual length of the first lane model. ([0050] Furthermore, an evasion distance DA from the starting point P1 to the collision object 200 is determined, by way of example by the emergency braking system 40, wherein the evasion distance DA indicates from which point the emergency braking system 40 identifies a driving situation as critical, in other words an impending collision K is detected and an evasive maneuver AWM is initiated, wherein this evasion distance DA is between 30 m and 40 m in order to render it possible to safely evade the collision by means of a steering procedure and a braking procedure.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising signaling an impaired confidence in the used first lane model in response to the distance the vehicle has traveled being greater than the virtual length. ([0025] In this case, the evasion distance indicates the distance between the collision object and the commercial vehicle-trailer combination once the evasive maneuver has been triggered, in other words from the point in time after which an emergency braking system (AEBS) outputs a warning of an impending collision.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising replacing the first lane model with a third lane model in response to a determination that a quality of the third lane exceeding a limit value. (Col 18 Line 59-66 Another outcome is that the object detection result based on passive sensor data is disaffirmed by the active sensor data, i.e., neither the affinity with regard shape not that with regard depth is above some threshold level. The third possibility may correspond to partial affirmation, either only object shapes detected using passive/active sensor data are in agreement but not the depth or only estimated/sensed object depths are in agreement but not the shape.)
Regarding claim 8, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein a validity of the stored first stable lane model expires when an ascertained age of the first stored lane model exceeds a limit value. (Col 18 Line 39-43 Whether the degree of affinity between estimated object depth and the validation base data is considered adequate for validation purposes may be determined based on some criterion developed with respect to the type of affinity measurement. In some embodiments, the criterion may be a threshold value.)
Regarding claim 9, Zheng teaches A control device configured to perform an evasive maneuver, the control device comprising a processor system that is configured to: (Claim 1 A computer-implemented method Col 1 Line 34-36 Such collected data are then analyzed in real-time to detect obstacles which can then be used to control the vehicle in obstacle avoidance.)
generate a first lane model based on received measurement data of surroundings of a vehicle from at least one sensor; (Claim 1 receiving, by a computing system, a data package that includes a set of sensor data captured at an environment;)
save the first lane model; (Claim 11 a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:)
subsequent to the saving of the first lane model, obtain further received measurement data of the surroundings of the vehicle; (Col 2 Line 36-39 A second of the plurality of types of sensor data are then obtained from at least one of a second type of the plurality of sensors and are used to generate validation base data)
determine whether a second lane model generated or generatable using the further received measurement data is categorizable as stable; (Col 11 Line 50-53 A change in the earlier decision may cause a change to the label for the earlier data, which may thus affect the training data and subsequently the quality of the models trained using such labeled data.)
responsive to a result of the determination being that the second lane model is not categorizable as stable, (Claim 1 a second subset of the sensor data associated with second confidence scores that fail to satisfy the confidence threshold;),
Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses ascertain an incident corridor, which is a corridor within which the evasive maneuver is possible within a time interval, based on the saved first lane model; ([0048] In order to perform the combined steering and braking procedure, after an impending collision K is detected the emergency evasion control unit 70 first of all calculates an initial evasion trajectory AT_0, along which the commercial vehicle-trailer combination 100 is to be guided from a starting traffic lane 300 a to a target traffic lane 300 b in order to evade the collision object 200 in an evasive maneuver AWM)
based on the ascertainment of the incident corridor, plan an evasion path within the ascertained incident corridor; and([0048] An exemplary initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is illustrated in FIG. 2a as a finely dashed line.)
generate, on receipt of a trigger incident within the time interval, control commands for longitudinal guidance and/or transverse guidance of the vehicle for traveling along the evasion path; ([0041] In this case, the desired vehicle deceleration that is specified to the electronic braking system is limited in such a manner that a total acceleration of the vehicle-trailer combination, which is derived from a vectorial sum of the longitudinal acceleration, in other words the desired vehicle deceleration, and the lateral acceleration, does not exceed a maximum total acceleration.)
wherein the ascertaining of the incident corridor is performed by executing an algorithm that defines that when the result of the determination is that the second lane model is categorizable as stable, the second lane model is used for the ascertainment of the incident corridor. ([0054] It is possible under these boundary conditions to unambiguously determine the coefficients ci by triggering a linear system of equations, whereby the initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is established between the start point P1 and the end point P2. [0061] It is intended in this manner that not only is the primary impending crash prevented but secondary accidents, such as the vehicle-trailer combination 100 tipping over or becoming unstable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for performing an evasive maneuver, the computer program, when executed by a processor system, causing the processor system to perform: (Claim 1 A computer-implemented method Col 1 Line 34-36 Such collected data are then analyzed in real-time to detect obstacles which can then be used to control the vehicle in obstacle avoidance.)
generating a first lane model based on received measurement data of surroundings of a vehicle from at least one sensor; (Claim 1 receiving, by a computing system, a data package that includes a set of sensor data captured at an environment;)
saving the first lane model; (Claim 11 a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:)
subsequent to the saving of the first lane model, obtaining further received measurement data of the surroundings of the vehicle; (Col 2 Line 36-39 A second of the plurality of types of sensor data are then obtained from at least one of a second type of the plurality of sensors and are used to generate validation base data)
determining whether a second lane model generated or generatable using the further received measurement data is categorizable as stable; (Col 11 Line 50-53 A change in the earlier decision may cause a change to the label for the earlier data, which may thus affect the training data and subsequently the quality of the models trained using such labeled data.)
responsive to a result of the determination being that the second lane model is not categorizable as stable, (Claim 1 a second subset of the sensor data associated with second confidence scores that fail to satisfy the confidence threshold;),
Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses ascertaining an incident corridor, which is a corridor within which the evasive maneuver is possible within a time interval, based on the saved first lane model; ([0048] In order to perform the combined steering and braking procedure, after an impending collision K is detected the emergency evasion control unit 70 first of all calculates an initial evasion trajectory AT_0, along which the commercial vehicle-trailer combination 100 is to be guided from a starting traffic lane 300 a to a target traffic lane 300 b in order to evade the collision object 200 in an evasive maneuver AWM)
based on the ascertainment of the incident corridor, planning an evasion path within the ascertained incident corridor; and([0048] An exemplary initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is illustrated in FIG. 2a as a finely dashed line.)
generating, on receipt of a trigger incident within the time interval, control commands for longitudinal guidance and/or transverse guidance of the vehicle for traveling along the evasion path; ([0041] In this case, the desired vehicle deceleration that is specified to the electronic braking system is limited in such a manner that a total acceleration of the vehicle-trailer combination, which is derived from a vectorial sum of the longitudinal acceleration, in other words the desired vehicle deceleration, and the lateral acceleration, does not exceed a maximum total acceleration.)
wherein the ascertaining of the incident corridor is performed by executing an algorithm that defines that when the result of the determination is that the second lane model is categorizable as stable, the second lane model is used for the ascertainment of the incident corridor. ([0054] It is possible under these boundary conditions to unambiguously determine the coefficients ci by triggering a linear system of equations, whereby the initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is established between the start point P1 and the end point P2. [0061] It is intended in this manner that not only is the primary impending crash prevented but secondary accidents, such as the vehicle-trailer combination 100 tipping over or becoming unstable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses The method as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the first and second lane models is associated with a virtual length of a distance over which the respective lane model remains reliable ([0025] the evasion distance indicates the distance between the collision object and the commercial vehicle-trailer combination once the evasive maneuver has been triggered, in other words from the point in time after which an emergency braking system (AEBS) outputs a warning of an impending collision), and the algorithm defines that a manner in which the saved first lane model is used depends on a comparison of a distance the vehicle has traveled since the first lane model has been saved to the virtual length of the first lane model. ([0051]a lateral offset Q is determined that indicates the desired distance between the relevant commercial vehicle-trailer combination 100 and the collision object 200 after the evasive maneuver. The evasion distance DA and the lateral offset Q establish an end point P2 on the target traffic lane 300 b with which the initial evasion trajectory AT_0 is calculated at the start of the evasive maneuver AWM)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the algorithm defines that when the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first lane model has been saved is greater than the virtual length of the first lane model, the first lane model is modified based on the further received measurement data. (Col 6 Line 1-10 For example, an object detected a few seconds earlier may be continuously tracked and motion information may be estimated. When the object becomes closer in distance later in time, more information becomes available and the detection can be continuously validated in time with enhanced certainty. The enhanced certain validation later in time may be used to validate the detection of the object at an earlier time. In this manner, the object detected earlier in time may also be labeled as such and can be used as training data to further adapt the model, both locally and globally, to improve future performance)
Regarding claim 13, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the algorithm defines that:
when the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first lane model has been saved is greater than the virtual length of the first lane model, the first lane model is modified based on the further received measurement data; and (Col 6 Line 1-5 For example, an object detected a few seconds earlier may be continuously tracked and motion information may be estimated. When the object becomes closer in distance later in time, more information becomes available and the detection can be continuously validated in time with enhanced certainty.)
when the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first lane model has been saved is not greater than the virtual length of the first lane model, the first lane model is used for the ascertainment of the incident corridor without modification of the first lane model based on the further received measurement data. (Col 6 Line 11-17 In autonomous driving, one of the most essential tasks is to be able to accurately estimate the distance between the vehicle and any of the objects surrounding the vehicle (other vehicles, trees, curb, pedestrians, buildings, etc.). A key to autonomous driving is to know the distance between a vehicle and all surrounding objects in real time so that the vehicle can be controlled to react timely)
Regarding claim 14, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the result of the determination being that the second lane model is not categorizable as stable is based on a first traffic situation of the vehicle at a time when the second lane model is generated or generatable is categorized as having greater than a predefined threshold of dynamicity, the first lane model having been generated during a second traffic situation of the vehicle that is categorized as not having greater than the predefined threshold of dynamicity. (Col 15 Line 24-36 For example, a depth measure at a point that is closest to the vehicle may be determined. In some situations, the closest distance may be the most important information for the purpose of obstacle avoidance. In some embodiments, more than one measures may be estimated, e.g., the smallest depth (closest distance), an average depth plus depth variance (e.g., may be useful to determine whether the object is relatively flat), etc. may be used to characterize the depth feature of the object. In some embodiment, a sparse depth map for the object may be generated. The level of sparseness may be determined dynamically based on, various considerations.)
Regarding claim 15, Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses The method as recited in claim 1, wherein: the first lane model is of at least one lane of a road on which the vehicle is traveling during a first time period; and the incident corridor is ascertained based on a driving situation detected as being present during a second time period that is subsequent to the first time period. ([0020] As a result, the vehicle-trailer combination is moved from a starting traffic lane, on which the vehicle-trailer combination is located prior to the evasive maneuver, to a target traffic lane that is specified as the traffic lane for bringing the vehicle-trailer combination to a standstill.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng does not expressly disclose but Barth discloses The method as recited in claim 15, wherein the algorithm defines that when the result of the determination is that the second lane model is categorizable as stable, then the second lane model, on which the ascertainment of the incident corridor is to be based, is to be ascertained based on the driving situation detected as being present during the second time period, the second lane model being of the at least one lane of the road on which the vehicle is traveling during the second time period. ([0021] As a result, it is advantageously already possible to achieve that the evasive maneuver is performed in addition whilst taking into consideration stability requirements, with the result that it is possible during the evasive maneuver to prevent the vehicle-trailer combination from starting to tip over as a result of an excessively large desired steering angle or to prevent loss of directional stability in the event that a traction limit is exceeded as a result of an excessively high desired vehicle deceleration and consequently to prevent the vehicle swerving as a result of under-control or over-control of the towing vehicle or to prevent the trailer swerving or rather jack-knifing.[0022]It is advantageously possible in this manner after a collision is detected not only to prevent the primary impending crash but rather also to prevent any resultant secondary accident consequences.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng with the teachings of Barth with a reasonable expectation of success by evading the collision object along the respective evasion trajectory over an evasion distance as taught by Barth ([0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the determination is based on a completeness or the further received measurement data or a state of one or more sensors from which the further received measurement data is obtained. (Col 29 Line 15-18 Upon completing the model update, the selected model update center(s) send the updated models packages to the vehicles that are designated to receive updated models.)
Regarding claim 18, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the determination is based on whether the further received measurement data is received in a fused form or in sensor-level form. (Col 2 Line 28-32 A plurality of types of sensor data are acquired continuously via a plurality of types of sensors deployed on the vehicle, where the plurality of types of sensor data provide information about surrounding of the vehicle)
Regarding claim 19, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the determination is based on a dynamicity of a traffic situation when the further measurement data is obtained. (Col 8 Line 24-30 Examples include sensors data that indicate the light condition (220-1), weather condition (220-2) such as whether it is snowing, road condition (220-3) such as whether the road is wet, driving parameters (220-4) such as speed, . . . , and traffic condition (220-5) such as light, medium, or heavy traffic, etc. Environment can also include (not shown in FIG. 2 ) time of the day, season, locale, etc.)
Regarding claim 20, Zheng teaches The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the determination is based on a condition of weather at a region in which the vehicle is located when the further measurement data is obtained. (Claim 1 wherein at least one of the class model configurations is associated with a weather related class model of the local class models)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH TRAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6642. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm M-F.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/S.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656