DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/14/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 2/14/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 21-22 have been cancelled.
Claims 7 and 14 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 10/23/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/23/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Applicant further remarks that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0134284) in view of Gunel (United States Patent Publication 2021/0110217), in view of Kang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0256083), and in further view of Kvieska et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0331224).
With respect to Claim 1: While Newman discloses “An apparatus for driving assistance” [Newman, Abstract, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0045-0046];
“the apparatus comprising: at least one memory in which a program for determining a cut-in vehicle is stored” [Newman, ¶ 0005];
“and at least one processor configured to execute the stored program” [Newman, ¶ 0005];
“wherein the at least one processor is configured to” [Newman, ¶ 0005];
“acquire image data from a camera” [Newman, ¶ 0016 and 0033];
“including an image sensor that converts light into electrical signals” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“identify a first nearby vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to a vehicle from the electrical signals” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“identify a front wheel of the first nearby vehicle from the electrical signals” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“determine whether the first nearby vehicle attempts to cut into a travel lane in which the vehicle is traveling” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“based on electrical signal including information on the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“wherein said determination is performed using the acquired image data when a speed of the vehicle is smaller than or equal to a predetermined reference value” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“and is performed using at least one of radar data or LiDAR data when the speed of the vehicle exceeds the predetermined reference value” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“and in response to determining that the first nearby vehicle attempts to cut into the travel lane, generating a warning signal for output to of the vehicle” [Newman, ¶ 0047];
“wherein the determination of whether the first nearby vehicle attempts to cut into the travel lane is performed only when a predetermined position condition is satisfied” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
“the predetermined position condition being satisfied when the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle is positioned in range of the sensor” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0044-0046];
However Newman does not specifically state that different sensors are used at different speeds, that the alert is on the display or audio, or that the sensor range, or location determination of the neighboring vehicle is specific, such as between a front and rear bumper.
Gunel, which is also a vehicle control based on separate sensors teaches “determine the cut-in vehicle based on the image data acquired from the camera when a speed of the vehicle is smaller than or equal to a predetermined reference value” [Gunel, ¶ 0035-0037];
“and determine the cut-in vehicle based on at least one of radar data acquired from a radar provided in the vehicle or light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data acquired from a LiDAR provided in the vehicle when the speed of the vehicle exceeds the predetermined reference value” [Gunel, ¶ 0035-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gunel into the invention of Newman to include using sensors to determine a vehicle cut-in and varying thresholds based on speed as Newman discloses but to also vary the sensors themselves based on speed as taught by Gunel with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gunel into Newman to create a more robust system that account for sensors strength and usefulness based on vehicle speed thresholds [Gunel, ¶ 0037]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as wheel measurement at various speed for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kang, which is also a vehicle control system that measures vehicles is neighboring lanes teaches “wherein the determination of whether the first nearby vehicle should be avoided is performed only when a predetermined position condition is satisfied” [Kang, ¶ 0054-0055 with Figure 3];
“the predetermined position condition being satisfied when vehicle is positioned between a rear bumper and a front bumper of the vehicle” [Kang, ¶ 0054-0055 with Figure 3].
Office Note: It is the Office's stance that the specification of choosing a sensor range of front bumper to rear bumper, without any explanation of any well-known benefit of a selecting any other range is a mere design choice. As the cited art clearly shows, using many different ranges for vehicle detection for different vehicle is control is known and used. Further, based on applicants own specification, the bumper to bumper is a mere example of a range of the sensor and further states “it is also possible to set the offset forward by the predetermined distance from the position of the front bumper” thus demonstrating the range and choice of choosing any location next to a vehicle, in front of the vehicle, between the bumpers. By choosing a location range (which is known and shown in the prior art) and choosing bumper to bumper, over any other sensor range, without the recitation of a known and understood benefit of such a selection of between front bumper and rear bumper, does not distinct the invention over the prior art. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of choosing any sensor range based and the selection would have been obvious, thus the design choice would have produced predictable results.
In addition Newman discloses the Invention except for specific range of the sensor being between front bumper and rear bumper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to discover an optimal range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the invention of Newman to not only include using sensor ranges which include vehicles between the front and rear bumper to determine a vehicle cut-in and varying thresholds based on speed as Newman discloses but to also only do this for known defined locations surrounding the vehicle as taught by Kang with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kang into Newman to create a more robust system that create a more user friendly environment and reduce anxiety of a driver by helping identify neighboring vehicles behavior [Kang, ¶ 0004]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as wheel measurement at various speed for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Kvieska, which is also a vehicle control based on other vehicle motions teaches “and in response to determining that the first nearby vehicle attempts to cut into the travel lane, generating a warning signal for output via at least one of a display device or an audio device of the vehicle” [Kvieska, ¶ 0031 and 0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kvieska into the invention of Newman to include using sensors to determine a vehicle cut-in and warn the user of said cut in as Newman discloses but to also use lights and sounds for an alert as taught by Kvieska with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Kvieska into Newman to create a more robust system that warn the inside user and outside user of possible vehicle control issues, thus creating a safter driving environment [Kvieska, ¶ 0030]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as wheel measurement at various speed for vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire a steering angle of the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle based on the electrical signals” [Newman, ¶ 0025, 0029, 0033, 0041-0042 and 0045-0046].
With respect to Claim 3: Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the first nearby vehicle is the cut-in vehicle, based on the electrical signals including steering angle of the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle exceeding a reference angle” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0045-0046].
With respect to Claim 4: Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a predicted travel route of the first nearby vehicle, based on the electrical signals including information on the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle” [Newman, ¶ 0041-0042 and 0045-0046].
With respect to Claim 5: Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the first nearby vehicle is the cut-in vehicle, based on the predicted travel route of the first nearby vehicle that is directed to the travel lane” [Newman, ¶ 0019, 0035, 0041-0042 and 0045-0046].
With respect to Claim 6: Newman discloses “The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the predicted travel route of the first nearby vehicle is directed to the travel lane, based on the electrical signals including a steering angle of the front wheel of the first nearby vehicle exceeding a reference angle” [Newman, ¶ 0019, 0035, 0041-0042 and 0045-0046].
With respect to Claims 8-13 : all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-6. The apparatus taught/disclosed in Claims 8-13 can clearly perform as the apparatus of Claims 1-6. Therefore Claims 8-13 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 15-20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-6. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 15-20 can clearly perform as the apparatus of Claims 1-6. Therefore Claims 15-20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c