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 Objections
Applicant corrected the identified grammatical issues, and thus the related objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently integrate into a practical application by actively controlling an ADAS to perform a maneuver, and thus are deemed eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mudalige (US20130099911A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mudalige discloses;
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller (disclosed as a processing unit, element 24) configured to perform:
obtaining information about travel of a first [interpreted to be the main road vehicle] vehicle using a plurality of sensors mounted in the first vehicle (disclosed as receiving the parameter data of remote vehicles and host vehicles, using onboard sensors, element 30, paragraph 0017);
obtaining information about travel of a second [interpreted to be the merging vehicle] vehicle (disclosed as the host vehicle communicating data between vehicles, including position, kinematics, projected path etc. paragraph 0015);
outputting to the second vehicle information about whether the first vehicle will perform a give-way action (disclosed as communicating/receiving the remote vehicle of the [host] driver’s merging intent, and the remote vehicle transmitting the acceptance of the merging intent, paragraph 0018), and outputting a command causing an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) in the first vehicle to perform the give-way action (disclosed as coordinating the response of the remote vehicle for negotiating merging positions, paragraph 0018, and the processing unit controls the vehicle for executing autonomously the merging maneuver, paragraph 0019), in response to determining, based on the information about the travel of the first vehicle and the information about the travel of the second vehicle, that predetermined conditions for the first vehicle to give way to the second vehicle are satisfied (disclosed as determining whether the remote vehicle has accepted the merge intentions, such that if accepted, the merge negotiation proceeds, and if rejected, executing a different strategy, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 2, Mudalige discloses;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle about performing the give-way action when the first vehicle performs the give-way action (disclosed as providing a notification whether the remote vehicle has accepted the merging intention, paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 6, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the information about travel of the second vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the second vehicle (taught as data communicated between vehicles including projected travel path, course heading, and navigation data, paragraph 0013, and using the projected paths of both vehicles to coordinate a negotiated merging maneuver, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6 (see claim 6 rejection), wherein the information about travel of the first vehicle comprises an estimated travel route for the first vehicle (taught as data communicated between vehicles including projected travel path, course heading, and navigation data, paragraph 0013, and using the projected paths of both vehicles to coordinate a negotiated merging maneuver, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 9, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein outputting the command comprises causing a brake of the first vehicle to engage without action by a driver of the first vehicle (taught as the vehicle control system executing the merging maneuver, including speeding up, slowing down, or other speed control, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 10, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the controller is further configured to avoid performing the give-way action in response to failing to satisfy the predetermined conditions (taught as determining whether the remote vehicle has accepted the merge intentions, such that if accepted, the merge negotiation proceeds, and if rejected, executing a different strategy, paragraph 0043; effectively, the acceptance of cooperation serves as a predetermined condition).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudalige (US20130099911A1) in view of Uenoyama (US20210256851A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Mudalige does not explicitly teach; wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle of characteristics of the second vehicle when the first vehicle performs the give-way action.
Uenoyama teaches; wherein the controller notifies a driver of the first vehicle of characteristics of the second vehicle when the first vehicle performs the give-way action (taught as supplying vehicle information, such as vehicle body colors, types or identification numbers in merge guidance, paragraph 0113).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further information shared between cooperating vehicles as taught by Uenoyama in the system taught by Mudalige in order to improve coordination. Such detail improves the communication and identification of cooperating vehicles, and allows clarity in the messages between them. For example, Uenoyama suggests message that include vehicle type and color to reduce ambiguity for the merging vehicle (paragraph 0077). As Mudalige already communicates vehicle parameter data between the cooperating vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that including characteristic information of the vehicles as taught by Uenoyama would improve communication in the system taught Mudalige.
Regarding claim 4, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Mudalige does not explicitly teach;, wherein the controller includes information about characteristics of the first vehicle in the information output to the second vehicle about whether the first vehicle will perform the give-way action.
Uenoyama teaches; wherein the controller includes information about characteristics of the first vehicle in the information output to the second vehicle about whether the first vehicle will perform the give-way action (taught as supplying vehicle information, such as vehicle body colors, types or identification numbers in merge guidance, paragraph 0113).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further information shared between cooperating vehicles as taught by Uenoyama in the system taught by Mudalige in order to improve coordination. Such detail improves the communication and identification of cooperating vehicles, and allows clarity in the messages between them. For example, Uenoyama suggests message that include vehicle type and color to reduce ambiguity for the merging vehicle (paragraph 0077).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudalige (US20130099911A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jha (US20220332350A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Mudalige does not explicitly teach; wherein the predetermined conditions include an ability to maintain a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle at a predetermined distance or more by decelerating the first vehicle at a predetermined decelerating acceleration or less; and
the controller outputs, as the command for the first vehicle to take the give-way action, a command for applying a brake so that the decelerating of the first vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined decelerating.
Jha teaches; wherein the predetermined conditions include an ability to maintain a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle at a predetermined distance or more by decelerating the first vehicle at a predetermined decelerating [examiner notes that no meaningful bounds are provided, and thus any amount of deceleration/acceleration would fulfill the current claim language] or less (taught as requiring a safe insertion gap between a subject [merging, second] vehicle and a cooperative [target, first] vehicle, paragraph 0205); and
the controller outputs, as the command for the first vehicle to take the give-way action, a command for applying a brake so that the decelerating of the first vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined decelerating (taught as coordinating the subject and target vehicle, such that the subject vehicle is decelerated for the gap creation required, paragraph 0206).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the distance requirement as taught by Jha in the system taught by Mudalige in order to improve safety and efficiency. Mudalige already teaches the idea that the cooperating vehicle assists the host vehicle with merging by adjusting speed (paragraph 0047). Thus, coupled with the idea of engaging the merge cooperation and maintaining the safe, required inter vehicle gap as suggested by Jha (paragraph 0205), one of ordinary skill in the art would effectively result in the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mudalige (US20130099911A1) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Stock (US20180172355A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mudalige teaches;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection), wherein the predetermined conditions comprise:
whether a distance between the first vehicle on the estimated route of the first vehicle and the second vehicle on the estimated route of the second vehicle at a same point in time is less than a threshold distance (taught as detecting the projected paths of both vehicles and determining a time to intersect, paragraph 0019, and using imaginary safety envelopes around the host and remote vehicle in determining time to intersect, paragraph 0026).
However, Mudalige does not explicitly teach; (ii) whether deceleration of the first vehicle to maintain the distance greater than or equal to the threshold distance is less than or equal to a threshold deceleration.
Stock teaches; whether deceleration of the first vehicle to maintain the distance greater than or equal to the threshold distance is less than or equal to a threshold deceleration (taught as determining whether a lane change or merging maneuver is possible within predetermined jerk/deceleration limits without falling below a threshold minimum distance, paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider predetermined limits/conditions, such as suggested in Stock, in the system taught by Mudalige, in order to improve lane merging control, safety, and comfort. Such consideration explicitly takes into account system limits of the vehicles and the environmental situation of the vehicle, and as taught by Stock, reduces the number of driver interventions and increased comfort (paragraph 0031). Trying to implement a maneuver that requires more capability than the system can handle, such as needing to go beyond a vehicle’s maximum deceleration ability, would likely result in situations that are unsafe; for example, not accounting for a maximum deceleration limit could attempt cause the vehicle to fall below a minimum distance threshold and subsequently collide with another vehicle. To reiterate; one of ordinary skill in the art would think to apply system/predetermined limits on vehicle performance as a condition to implement a suggested maneuver, as suggested in Stock, in the system taught by Mudalige, in order to improve the safety and comfort of a lane change or merging operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks that Mudalige does not explicitly or inherently disclose the amended claim language, and thus should not be rejected under 102.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that amended claim language that addresses “obtaining information about travel…using a plurality of sensors mounted in the first vehicle” is obtained in Mudalige using onboard sensors to obtain vehicle parameter data (paragraph 0017), and thus is still seen to be covered.
Mudalige additionally covers whether the vehicle will perform a give-way action as recited based on the acceptance of the cooperation; acceptance means the cooperative give-way maneuver will occur, and non-acceptance means it won’t and an alternative maneuver must be considered (e.g. paragraph 0043).
Mudalige further indicates the use of autonomous control of the vehicle in a vehicle merge control mode (e.g. paragraph 0019), and thus effectively discloses the broadly recited ADAS that autonomously controls the vehicle.
Thus, Mudalige is seen to disclose the amended claim material, and the rejection is sustained.
The applicant argues that Mudalige does not teach or disclose the recited predetermined conditions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Mudalige does account for different conditions in determining/executing a merge assist/control, including for distance thresholds for a safety envelope to prevent collisions (e.g. paragraph 0026).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further merge space/gap considerations, related to claim 5; US11338813B2, US20170203764A1, US20180339708A1
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights