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
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/07/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 15, The limitations of claim 1 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 15 recites “…issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: determine a lateral distance and determine a compensation for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position” and “issue a second signal to the driver or the driver unit when the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the above limitations are directed to issuing warnings such as a human or a passenger warning/alerting the driver that it is safe to perform a lane change when the longitudinal and the lateral distances between the own vehicle and the vehicle ahead or adjacent to it is above a certain limit, which constitutes a mental process as enumerated in Section I of the 2018 patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG). The claimed “accessing”, “determining” and “determine” steps amount to analyzing information and making a decision based on the analysis, which can practically be performed in the human mind. The recitation of a “commercial vehicle”, “issuing a signal”, “issue a second signal” or “evaluation unit” does not alter the fundamental nature of the claimed concept as these elements merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG regardless of whether a computer is used to perform the steps more efficiently. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea and in addition to outputting on display are additional elements as they amount to necessary mere data gathering or a tool to receive the data being gathered to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 07/10/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to “…issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: determine a lateral distance and determine a compensation for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position” and “issue a second signal to the driver or the driver unit when the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range…” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Also, the claims do not provide any control step to control the commercial vehicle to change lanes or to stay on the same lane if it is not safe to perform a lane change and in addition to the claim limitations only provide an alert to the driver/passenger to either perform a lane change or not depending on the longitudinal and lateral distance which can be done mentally. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by one distance measurement device, issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change and issue a second signal to the driver or the driver unit when the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range. However, the additional elements merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The recited acts of one distance measurement device and issuing signals constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering and output, which do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the claims do not recite any limitation that controls the vehicle itself, alters vehicle operation, or change physical driving behavior. Instead, the claims merely recommend or present route information, leaving the final decision to the driver. Such route observation and lane change recommendation can be performed mentally and does not amount a technological improvement.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claiming issuing signals inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes Applicant’s citing to Enfish, LLC v Microsoft corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved determination of the priority evacuation area and controlling the vehicle to perform the evacuation plan” The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Therefore, Enfish does not apply here. The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. Examiner submits that under the current 35 U.S.C. 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.” The instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2B the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained. Examiner notes that claims 29-31 overcomes the 101 rejections.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 11/07/2025 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited references Zdenek et al (WO2020020525A1) and Sim (US 2016/0185388 A1).
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. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an evaluation unit, driving unit, driver unit, an electronic control unit, brake control unit, light control unit, vehicle electronic control unit, control unit, radar unit, processing unit and measuring unit as in SPEC (pages 4-5 and 17) in claims 15-24, 26 and 28-31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, it is indefinite as claim 20 depends on claim 19 which is now canceled so it is not clear whether claim 20 now depends on claim 18 or claim 15? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites:
An overtaking assistance device for a commercial vehicle equipped with at least one distance measurement device mounted on a rear of the commercial vehicle and configured to provide distance information suitable to determine a closest distance and an angle to another vehicle in an adjacent driving lane, the overtaking assistance device comprising:
an evaluation unit configured to provide an overtaking support function by:
accessing the distance measurement device to obtain distance information to the other vehicle;
determining a longitudinal distance between the commercial vehicle and the other vehicle based on the distance information;
and issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete the overtaking operation.
Under Step 1 Claim 15 is a system claim same as claims 16-18 and 20-26.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 15 recites “commercial vehicle and configured to provide distance information suitable to determine a closest distance and an angle to another vehicle in an adjacent driving lane, the overtaking assistance device comprising: [e.g., the operations are insignificant extra-solution activity resulting from manual operations by a user] indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold, wherein [e.g., the operations are insignificant extra-solution activity resulting from manual operations by a user]”. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. As a person/passenger, can determine after observing the surrounding of the vehicle, the distance to the adjacent vehicle and decide based on the distance and relative speed whether to change lanes ahead of the adjacent vehicle or not. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 16-18 and 20-26 are also abstract for similar reasons.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional elements of “An overtaking assistance device”, “one distance measurement device”, “an evaluation unit configured to provide an overtaking support function by: accessing the distance measurement device”, “issuing a signal” and “issue a second signal” steps. The device hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 16-18 and 20-26 are not patent eligible.
The independent method claim 27 recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 15. Therefore, the non-transitory storage medium claim 28 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 15 outlined above.
Dependent claims 16-18 and 20-26 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 15-18 and 20-28 are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 15, 21-25 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Wang et al (CN109878446B) (hereinafter Wang) in further view of Zdenek et al (WO2020020525A1), (hereinafter Zdenek) in further view of Sim (US 2016/0185388 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses an overtaking assistance device for a commercial vehicle equipped with at least one distance measurement device mounted on a rear of the commercial vehicle and configured to provide distance information suitable to determine a closest distance and an angle to another vehicle in an adjacent driving lane, the overtaking assistance device comprising: (see Wang page “1” and claim 1 “The overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars includes a radar detection unit, a central control unit, a video display unit, and an early warning unit; The radar detection unit is used to detect the driving condition of the vehicle; The radar detection unit includes a first radar installed in the front of the car body… and installed in the position of the left rear light of the car The fourth radar; the first radar is a lidar; the second, third, and fourth radars are all millimeter-wave radars… the third radar is used to detect whether there is a vehicle in the area C; The fourth radar is used to detect whether there is a car in the D area, and collect the car data if there is a car; wherein… the D area includes the left rear area of the vehicle on the left side of the lane”),
an evaluation unit configured to provide an overtaking support function by: (see Wang page 2 “The central control unit includes a data calculation unit and an image processing unit; the data calculation unit comprehensively analyzes the data collected by the radar and determines whether an overtaking warning command is issued; and transmits the message that requires warning to the video display unit and the warning unit”),
accessing the distance measurement device to obtain distance information to the other vehicle (see Wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
determining a longitudinal distance between the commercial vehicle and the other vehicle based on the distance information (see Wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
and issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation (see Wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
But Wang fails to explicitly teach issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold.
However, Zdenek teaches issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete an overtaking operation when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold (see Zdenek pages “2” and “4-5” “From the distance and the angle, the longitudinal distance can be determined. It may also be intended to enable that at least two environmental sensors, which are located in different mounting positions, each determine the distance to the further vehicle. The relative position can be determined by means of triangulation or trilateration. Based on the motion data and the environmental data, a threshold value for the distance value is determined. In case the distance value is larger than the threshold value, a first signal is provided or emitted” and “a first signal is emitted, in case the distance value is larger than the threshold value. In an advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the first signal describes that a completion of the overtaking maneuver by merging of the vehicle into the second lane is possible”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to alert the driver that a safe lane change can be permitted when the longitudinal distance is greater than a threshold” as taught by Zdenek (pages 2 and 4-5) in order to maintain a safety distance to the preceding vehicle and to allow a safe lane change.
But modified Wang fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: determine a lateral distance and determine a compensation for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position, and issue a second signal to the driver or the driver unit when the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range.
However, Sim teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: determine a lateral distance (see Sim paras “0036”, “0093” and “0163” “acquire information regarding the front in the lateral direction… and the position and distance of the object may be obtained”, “the control unit 130 may continuously monitor the lateral distance to a side object” and “when a side object exists, the lateral distance between the side object and the own vehicle is measured”), and determine a compensation for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position (see Sim paras “0048-0053”, “0141” and “0170” “the lateral offset, which is a distance between the camera center of the vehicle 1130 and the center of an adjacent lane” regarding calculating a lateral offset between the camera center and the lane center within a vehicle coordinate system),
And issue a second signal to the driver or the driver unit when the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range (see Sim paras “0164-0166” “When the lateral distance to the side object in the direction, in which a lane change is to be made, is equal to or lower than a threshold distance… it is confirmed whether the lane change control is currently operating or not… the lane change control, which has been operating, is released, and the driver is warned”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to determine lateral distance relative to a vehicle reference frame and compensate for a sensor offset and to provide a warning signal when the lateral distance falls outside a safe range” as taught by Sim (paras [0048-0053] - [0164-0166]) in order to improve accuracy of object position detection and enhance safety during lane change operations.
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: trigger one or more of: an acoustic signal, a blinking of an end-outline marker, a visual indicator in a cabin or at the vehicle visible through a side window or a side mirror for the driver, or a warning to other systems (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses further comprising: at least one sensor mounted on a side of the commercial vehicle and configured to detect the other vehicle at the side of the vehicle, wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to receive a detection signal of the sensor as a confirmation of a presence of the other vehicle (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control a function of the commercial vehicle other than an overtaking assistance (see wang pages “2-4” and claim 1 “a multi-radar-based overtaking auxiliary early warning system and control method, which eliminates the human experience to determine the distance of the rear vehicle, eliminates the blind area of the field of view, and greatly reduces the risk of overtaking. The system Early warning of dangers that the driver cannot judge, so that the driver can perceive the dangerous factors in time to avoid accidents” and “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out”).
Regarding claim 24, Wang discloses wherein the ECU is: a brake control unit, a light control unit, a vehicle electronic control unit, or a control unit of the distance measurement device (see wang pages “2-4” and claim 1 “The early warning unit can use LED warning lights to warn whether it is possible to overtake; specifically: it is composed of LED warning lights and buzzers. The LED warning lights are installed on the periphery of the video display chip. When the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis, the LED warning lights The display is green” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
Regarding claim 25, Wang discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to control a function of the commercial vehicle other than an overtaking assistance (see wang page “1” and claim 1 “The overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars includes a radar detection unit, a central control unit, a video display unit, and an early warning unit; The radar detection unit is used to detect the driving condition of the vehicle; The radar detection unit includes a first radar installed in the front of the car body… and installed in the position of the left rear light of the car The fourth radar; the first radar is a lidar; the second, third, and fourth radars are all millimeter-wave radars… the third radar is used to detect whether there is a vehicle in the area C; The fourth radar is used to detect whether there is a car in the D area, and collect the car data if there is a car; wherein… the D area includes the left rear area of the vehicle on the left side of the lane”).
Regarding claim 27, Wang discloses a method for assisting a commercial vehicle when overtaking another vehicle, the commercial vehicle comprising at least one distance measurement device mounted on a rear side of the commercial vehicle and configured to measure a distance to another vehicle in an adjacent driving lane, the method comprising, with an overtaking assistance device: (see wang page “1” and claim 1 “The overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars includes a radar detection unit, a central control unit, a video display unit, and an early warning unit; The radar detection unit is used to detect the driving condition of the vehicle; The radar detection unit includes a first radar installed in the front of the car body… and installed in the position of the left rear light of the car The fourth radar; the first radar is a lidar; the second, third, and fourth radars are all millimeter-wave radars… the third radar is used to detect whether there is a vehicle in the area C; The fourth radar is used to detect whether there is a car in the D area, and collect the car data if there is a car; wherein… the D area includes the left rear area of the vehicle on the left side of the lane”),
obtaining distance information to the other vehicle from the distance measurement device (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
determining a longitudinal distance between the commercial vehicle and the other vehicle based on the distance information (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
and issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change to complete the overtaking operation (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
But Wang fails to explicitly teach issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change of the commercial vehicle to complete an overtaking operation of the other vehicle when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold.
However, Zdenek teaches issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change of the commercial vehicle to complete an overtaking operation of the other vehicle when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold (see Zdenek pages “2” and “4-5” “From the distance and the angle, the longitudinal distance can be determined. It may also be intended to enable that at least two environmental sensors, which are located in different mounting positions, each determine the distance to the further vehicle. The relative position can be determined by means of triangulation or trilateration. Based on the motion data and the environmental data, a threshold value for the distance value is determined. In case the distance value is larger than the threshold value, a first signal is provided or emitted” and “a first signal is emitted, in case the distance value is larger than the threshold value. In an advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the first signal describes that a completion of the overtaking maneuver by merging of the vehicle into the second lane is possible”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to alert the driver that a safe lane change can be permitted when the longitudinal distance is greater than a threshold” as taught by Zdenek (pages 2 and 4-5) in order to maintain a safety distance to the preceding vehicle and to allow a safe lane change.
But modified Wang fails to explicitly teach including the following: determining a lateral distance, compensating for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position, and issuing a second signal to the driver or the driver unit in case the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range.
However, Sim teaches including the following: determining a lateral distance (see Sim paras “0036”, “0093” and “0163” “acquire information regarding the front in the lateral direction… and the position and distance of the object may be obtained”, “the control unit 130 may continuously monitor the lateral distance to a side object” and “when a side object exists, the lateral distance between the side object and the own vehicle is measured”), compensating for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position (see Sim paras “0048-0053”, “0141” and “0170” “the lateral offset, which is a distance between the camera center of the vehicle 1130 and the center of an adjacent lane” regarding calculating a lateral offset between the camera center and the lane center within a vehicle coordinate system),
and issuing a second signal to the driver or the driver unit incase the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range (see Sim paras “0164-0166” “When the lateral distance to the side object in the direction, in which a lane change is to be made, is equal to or lower than a threshold distance… it is confirmed whether the lane change control is currently operating or not… the lane change control, which has been operating, is released, and the driver is warned”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to determine lateral distance relative to a vehicle reference frame and compensate for a sensor offset and to provide a warning signal when the lateral distance falls outside a safe range” as taught by Sim (paras [0048-0053] - [0164-0166]) in order to improve accuracy of object position detection and enhance safety during lane change operations.
Regarding claim 28, Wang discloses a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having program code stored thereon which, when executed on a processing unit, carries out the acts of: (see wang page “1” and claim 1 “The overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars includes a radar detection unit, a central control unit, a video display unit, and an early warning unit; The radar detection unit is used to detect the driving condition of the vehicle; The radar detection unit includes a first radar installed in the front of the car body… and installed in the position of the left rear light of the car The fourth radar; the first radar is a lidar; the second, third, and fourth radars are all millimeter-wave radars… the third radar is used to detect whether there is a vehicle in the area C; The fourth radar is used to detect whether there is a car in the D area, and collect the car data if there is a car; wherein… the D area includes the left rear area of the vehicle on the left side of the lane”),
obtaining, from a distance measurement device (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
distance information from a commercial vehicle to another vehicle; determining a longitudinal distance between the commercial vehicle equipped with the distance measuring unit and the other vehicle based on the distance information (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”),
and issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change of the commercial vehicle to complete an overtaking operation of the other vehicle (see wang page “4” and claim 1 “The fourth radar collects the line segment S4 and distance l4 between the left rear lights of the own vehicle and the right front corner of the vehicle behind the left lane, and the angle between the route of the own vehicle and S4 is Ɵ4; calculate l4•cosθ4=d4 , If d4 is greater than the preset safety distance d0, overtaking can be carried out” and “The LED warning light displays when the overtaking environment is safe and the overtaking can be completed after analysis. It is green”).
But Wang fails to explicitly teach issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change of the commercial vehicle to complete an overtaking operation of the other vehicle when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold.
However, Zdenek teaches issuing a signal indicating a possible safe lane change of the commercial vehicle to complete an overtaking operation of the other vehicle when the longitudinal distance is greater than a predefined threshold (see Zdenek pages “2” and “4-5” “From the distance and the angle, the longitudinal distance can be determined. It may also be intended to enable that at least two environmental sensors, which are located in different mounting positions, each determine the distance to the further vehicle. The relative position can be determined by means of triangulation or trilateration. Based on the motion data and the environmental data, a threshold value for the distance value is determined. In case the distance value is larger than the threshold value, a first signal is provided or emitted” and “a first signal is emitted, in case the distance value is larger than the threshold value. In an advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the first signal describes that a completion of the overtaking maneuver by merging of the vehicle into the second lane is possible”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to alert the driver that a safe lane change can be permitted when the longitudinal distance is greater than a threshold” as taught by Zdenek (pages 2 and 4-5) in order to maintain a safety distance to the preceding vehicle and to allow a safe lane change.
But modified Wang fails to explicitly teach including the following: determining a lateral distance, compensating for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position, and issuing a second signal to the driver or the driver unit in case the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range.
However, Sim teaches including the following: determining a lateral distance (see Sim paras “0036”, “0093” and “0163” “acquire information regarding the front in the lateral direction… and the position and distance of the object may be obtained”, “the control unit 130 may continuously monitor the lateral distance to a side object” and “when a side object exists, the lateral distance between the side object and the own vehicle is measured”), compensating for an offset of a position of the distance measurement device from a reference position (see Sim paras “0048-0053”, “0141” and “0170” “the lateral offset, which is a distance between the camera center of the vehicle 1130 and the center of an adjacent lane” regarding calculating a lateral offset between the camera center and the lane center within a vehicle coordinate system),
and issuing a second signal to the driver or the driver unit in case the determined lateral distance is outside a predefined range. (see Sim paras “0164-0166” “When the lateral distance to the side object in the direction, in which a lane change is to be made, is equal to or lower than a threshold distance… it is confirmed whether the lane change control is currently operating or not… the lane change control, which has been operating, is released, and the driver is warned”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to determine lateral distance relative to a vehicle reference frame and compensate for a sensor offset and to provide a warning signal when the lateral distance falls outside a safe range” as taught by Sim (paras [0048-0053] - [0164-0166]) in order to improve accuracy of object position detection and enhance safety during lane change operations.
Regarding claim 29, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the program code, when executed on the processing unit, further carries out the act of: controlling vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function.
However, Zdenek teaches wherein the program code, when executed on the processing unit, further carries out the act of: controlling vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function (see Zdenek pages “6” and “8” “If in this case the vehicle 300 had to brake suddenly and abruptly, for instance because suddenly an obstacle occurs in the further course of the second lane 200, the risk increases that in the case of a full braking, the further vehicle 400 cannot brake early enough… In Fig. 2 the vehicle 300 is in the middle of an overtaking maneuver” and “Now the preceding vehicle 300 starts to brake hard and its speed decreases accordingly”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to control braking of the commercial vehicle during overtaking maneuver” as taught by Zdenek (pages 6 and 8) in order to maintain a safe distance between vehicles and reduce the risk of collision.
Regarding claim 30, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein: an electronic control unit of the commercial vehicle comprises a brake control unit that comprises the overtaking assistance device; and the method further comprises the brake control unit controlling vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function.
However, Zdenek teaches wherein: an electronic control unit of the commercial vehicle comprises a brake control unit that comprises the overtaking assistance device; and the method further comprises the brake control unit controlling vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function (see Zdenek pages “6” and “8” “If in this case the vehicle 300 had to brake suddenly and abruptly, for instance because suddenly an obstacle occurs in the further course of the second lane 200, the risk increases that in the case of a full braking, the further vehicle 400 cannot brake early enough… In Fig. 2 the vehicle 300 is in the middle of an overtaking maneuver” and “Now the preceding vehicle 300 starts to brake hard and its speed decreases accordingly”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to control braking of the commercial vehicle during overtaking maneuver” as taught by Zdenek (pages 6 and 8) in order to maintain a safe distance between vehicles and reduce the risk of collision.
Regarding claim 31, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein: an electronic control unit of the commercial vehicle comprises a brake control unit that comprises the overtaking assistance device; and the brake control unit is configured to control vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function.
However, Zdenek teaches wherein: an electronic control unit of the commercial vehicle comprises a brake control unit that comprises the overtaking assistance device; and the brake control unit is configured to control vehicle braking of the commercial vehicle at least in part during the overtaking function (see Zdenek pages “6” and “8” “If in this case the vehicle 300 had to brake suddenly and abruptly, for instance because suddenly an obstacle occurs in the further course of the second lane 200, the risk increases that in the case of a full braking, the further vehicle 400 cannot brake early enough… In Fig. 2 the vehicle 300 is in the middle of an overtaking maneuver” and “Now the preceding vehicle 300 starts to brake hard and its speed decreases accordingly”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to control braking of the commercial vehicle during overtaking maneuver” as taught by Zdenek (pages 6 and 8) in order to maintain a safe distance between vehicles and reduce the risk of collision.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Wang et al (CN109878446B) (hereinafter Wang) in further view of Zdenek et al (WO2020020525A1), (hereinafter Zdenek) in further view of Sim (US 2016/0185388 A1) as applied above in claim 15, in further view of Kawaguchi et al (US 2022/0319332 A1) (Hereinafter Kawaguchi).
Regarding claim 16, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is configured to be placed in an idle state and an activated state, and the overtaking support function is provided in the activated state which is triggered by one or more of: an activated turning indicator, an initiated or upcoming steering actuation, a lateral approaching object, or a longitudinal approaching object.
However, Kawaguchi teaches wherein the evaluation unit is configured to be placed in an idle state and an activated state, and the overtaking support function is provided in the activated state which is triggered by one or more of: an activated turning indicator, an initiated or upcoming steering actuation, a lateral approaching object, or a longitudinal approaching object (see Kawaguchi paras “0009-0010” and “0062” “For example, in a scene in which the own vehicle overtakes another vehicle traveling in a next lane, the driver can recognize the other vehicle that has been traveling ahead. Thus, it is conceivable that the function of the blind spot monitor is inactivated when the own vehicle overtakes the other vehicle at high speed, and the function of the blind spot monitor is activated only when the own vehicle overtakes the other vehicle at low speed” and “the driver tends to check the activation state of the notification device (whether or not a light is turned on) every time the driver changes lanes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to alerts a driver when an alert-target object, for example, another vehicle existing in a blind spot area of the driver, is detected” as taught by Kawaguchi (paras. [0009-0010]) in order to avoid any collision that can happen with another vehicle existing in the blind spot during overtaking operation.
Regarding claim 17, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine at least one of: a speed relative to the other vehicle, an acceleration relative to the other vehicle, an angle of object reflections, which are each measured between the commercial vehicle and the other vehicle, or an activated indicator.
However, Kawaguchi teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to determine at least one of: a speed relative to the other vehicle, an acceleration relative to the other vehicle, an angle of object reflections, which are each measured between the commercial vehicle and the other vehicle, or an activated indicator (see Kawaguchi para “0047” “The rear radar sensor 21 supplies, to the BSM-ECU 10 at a predetermined cycle, information indicating the distance (detection distance) from the own vehicle to the target, the orientation (detection orientation) of the target with respect to the own vehicle, and the relative speed (detection relative speed) of the target with respect to the own vehicle. Those pieces of information are hereinafter referred to as “radar information.””).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to alerts a driver when an alert-target object, for example, another vehicle existing in a blind spot area of the driver, is detected” as taught by Kawaguchi (para. [0047]) in order to avoid any collision that can happen with another vehicle existing in the blind spot during overtaking operation.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Wang et al (CN109878446B) (hereinafter Wang) in further view of Zdenek et al (WO2020020525A1), (hereinafter Zdenek) in further view of Sim (US 2016/0185388 A1) in further view of Kawaguchi et al (US 2022/0319332 A1), (Hereinafter Kawaguchi) as applied above in claim 17, in further view of Kim et al (US 9,959,762 B1) (Hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: calculate, based on the relative speed, a time to collision; and issue a first signal to the driver or a driving unit in case the time of collision is below a predefined threshold.
However, Kim teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: calculate, based on the relative speed, a time to collision; and issue a first signal to the driver or a driving unit in case the time of collision is below a predefined threshold (see Kim col 2, lines 1-8 “obtaining a distance and a relative speed of the vehicle to a target vehicle ahead; obtaining a time required for a collision with the target vehicle from the distance and the relative speed; and generating a warning if at least one of a first condition in which the time required for the collision is equal to or less than a predetermined warning generation time and a second condition in which the distance is equal to or less than a predetermined warning generation distance is satisfied”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to generate an alert according to a distance-based condition to address the problem that may arise when a collision warning is generated only based on expected time taken for a collision” as taught by Kim (col 2, lines 1-8) in order to avoid any collision and to secure a safety distance.
Regarding claim 20, modified Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: issue a third signal to the driver or the driving unit based on the determined longitudinal distance.
However, Kim teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: issue a third signal to the driver or the driving unit based on the determined longitudinal distance (see Kim col 2, lines 1-8 and col 8, lines 10-21 “in the embodiment of the present disclosure, the closer the subject vehicle 102 approaches the target vehicle 104, the more warnings are generated in a short period of time, for example, first to third warnings are generated for a predetermined ∘∘ second(s) (e.g., two seconds). Such a method of generating multiple warnings is much more effective in calling the driver's attention than a method in which a single short warning is generated once”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to generate an alert according to a distance-based condition to address the problem that may arise when a collision warning is generated only based on expected time taken for a collision” as taught by Kim (col 8, lines 10-21) in order to avoid any collision and to secure a safety distance between the own vehicle and the target vehicle.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Wang et al (CN109878446B) (hereinafter Wang) in further view of Zdenek et al (WO2020020525A1), (hereinafter Zdenek) in further view of Sim (US 2016/0185388 A1) as applied to claim 25 above, in further view of Lu et al (US 2014/0085472 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: issue a third signal to the driver or the driving unit based on the determined longitudinal distance.
However, Lu teaches wherein the evaluation unit is further configured to: issue a third signal to the driver or the driving unit based on the determined longitudinal distance (see Lu paras “0035” and “0098” “For example, the system may operate to track and determine a sideward movement of a trailer portion or target and, utilizing the known geometries, such as the distance of the trailer portion or target from the camera and/or the distance of the trailer portion or target from the pivot point or joint at which the trailer tongue attached to the trailer hitch of the vehicle, determine the angular movement of the trailer about the trailer hitch and relative to the vehicle, such as to determine a sway or swing of the trailer relative to the towing vehicle or to determine a rearward trajectory or path of travel of the trailer during a reversing maneuver of the vehicle and trailer, or the like.” and “which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, a reverse or sideward imaging system, such as for a lane change assistance system or lane departure warning system or for a blind spot or object detection system”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang for an overtaking auxiliary early warning system based on multiple radars and a control method “to determine a trailer angle of a trailer that is towed by the vehicle using camera and based on measuring the distance behind” as taught by Lu (paras [0035] - [0098]) in order to assist the driver in reversing the trailer and to determine a rearward trajectory or path of travel of the trailer during a reversing maneuver of the vehicle and trailer.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664