DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2, 5,7, 9-12, 15, 17-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2021/0309227 A1) in view of Woltermann et al. (US 2021/0318684 A1).
As to claims 1, 15 and 18, Jang discloses a system/medium/method of a first vehicle in motion along a lane of a road, comprising: a memory (para. 0052) that stores computer executable components; and a processor (processor 130) that executes at least one of the computer executable components that: while the first vehicle is in motion, detects a second vehicle that is stopped on the road ahead of the first vehicle in the lane or another portion of the road adjacent to the lane (Fig. 2, S1, para. 0020); determines a condition applicable to the second vehicle (para. 0020), and based on the predicted movement being determined to satisfy a defined overtake condition, initiates the first vehicle to automatically perform an overtake action, to overtake the second vehicle (Fig. 2, S4/S5). Jang does not explicitly disclose the condition comprises a type of the second vehicle from a group of types of vehicles; determines, based on a data structure that defines respective predicted amounts of time being stationary for the types of vehicles, a predicted amount of time that the type of the second vehicle is expected to be stationary; determines a predicted movement of the second vehicle based on the condition, wherein determining the predicted movement is based on the predicted amount of time that the type of the second vehicle is expected to be stationary. However, Woltermann teaches the condition comprises a type of the second vehicle from a group of types of vehicles (para 0014); determines, based on a data structure that defines respective predicted amounts of time being stationary for the types of vehicles, a predicted amount of time that the type of the second vehicle is expected to be stationary (para. 0014); determines a predicted movement of the second vehicle based on the condition, wherein determining the predicted movement is based on the predicted amount of time that the type of the second vehicle is expected to be stationary (para. 0014-0015, 0041-0042). Therefore, given the teaching of Woltermann, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of predicting amount of stationary time based on type of vehicle, to determine whether to overtake the stopped vehicle or not.
As to claim 2, Jang further discloses wherein the condition comprises a traffic condition applicable to the second vehicle from a group of traffic conditions, and wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further determines the predicted movement based further on the traffic condition (Fig. 2, para. 0065-0066).
As to claim 5, Woltermann further teaches wherein the condition further comprises a type of the road from a group of types of roads, and wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further comprise: determines the predicted movement based further on the type of the road (para. 0044, narrow road).
As to claims 7 and 21, it is well-known that when a vehicle is stopped next to a parking meter, which means that vehicle is considered as parked, and people will overtake/bypass that parked vehicle instead of stop and wait for that vehicle to move. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of determine vehicle is parked if the vehicle is stopped next to a parking meter, to overtake a parked vehicle next to a parking meter instead of waiting that parked vehicle to move.
As to claim 9, Jang further discloses wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further determines a position of a user associated with the second vehicle, wherein the defined overtake condition is based on the position of the user (Fig. 2, para. 0012-0014).
As to claim 10, Jang further discloses wherein the at least one of the computer executable component determines a direction of navigation of the user, wherein the defined overtake condition is further based on the direction of navigation of the user (Fig. 2, para. 0012-0014).
As to claim 11, Jang further discloses wherein the at least one of the computer executable component determines entry or exit of the user from the second vehicle, wherein the defined overtake condition is further based on the entry or the exit of the user from the second vehicle (Fig. 2, para. 0012-0014).
As to claims 12, 17 and 20, Woltermann further teaches wherein the computer executable components further determines an amount of time that the second vehicle remains stationary, wherein the defined overtake condition is based on the amount of time that the second vehicle remains stationary and the predicted amount of time that the type of the second vehicle is expected to be stationary (para. 0014-0015, 0041-0042).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Woltermann, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Okuda et al. (US 2021/0291868 A1).
As to claim 4, Jang does not explicitly disclose the type of the second vehicle is a bus, and wherein the overtake action is based on a navigational rule applicable to the bus. However, Okuda teaches the type of the second vehicle is a bus, and wherein the overtake action is based on a navigational rule applicable to the bus (para. 0175-0177). Therefore, given the teaching of Okuda, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of identifying the second vehicle is a bus, to overtake the bus safely near the bus stop.
As to claim 8, Okuda further teaches wherein the vehicle determination component determines a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, wherein the defined overtake condition is based on the distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (para. 0058-0059).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Woltermann, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fahoum et al. (US 2024/0075950 A1).
As to claim 6, Jang and Okuda do not explicitly teach wherein the condition further comprises a logo on the second vehicle, and wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further, determines the predicted movement based further on the logo. However, Fahoum teaches wherein the condition further comprises a logo on the second vehicle, and wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further, determines the predicted movement based further on the log (para. 0049). Therefore, given the teaching of Fahoum, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of determine a logo, to identify the vehicle type.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Woltermann, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Seki et al. (US 2025/0006059 A1).
As to claim 13, Jang does not explicitly disclose receives, from the second vehicle, navigation information representative of a future navigational operation applicable to the second vehicle, wherein the defined overtake condition is based on the future navigational operation. However, Seki teaches receives, from the second vehicle, navigation information representative of a future navigational operation applicable to the second vehicle (para. 0083, 0085), wherein the defined overtake condition is based on the future navigational operation (Fig. 16, para. 0066-0067). Therefore, given the teaching of Seki, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of receives message of future navigational operation, to enable the first vehicle to overtake the second vehicle safely.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Woltermann, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Beaurepaire et al. (US 2023/0401952 A1) and Parekh et al. (US 2020/0177798 A1).
As to claim 14, Jang does not explicitly disclose using machine learning applied to past overtake actions other than the overtake action and other vehicles other than the second vehicle, generates an overtake model, and initiates the overtake action using the overtake model. However, Beaurepaire teaches using machine learning applied to past overtake actions other than the overtake action and other vehicles other than the second vehicle, generates an overtake model (para. 0004-0006), and Parekh teaches initiates the overtake action using the overtake model (Fig. 4, para. 0053, 0058). Therefore, given the teaching of Beaurepaire and Parekh, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the system of Jang, by employing the well-known or conventional features of generate overtake model by training machine learning model and using the overtake model to overtake preceding vehicle, to enable the first vehicle to overtake the second vehicle safely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights