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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/7/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 3/16/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are independent.
Claim 5 has been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
This Non-Final Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 4/22/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/22/2026; 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 are were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous 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, which have necessitated new analysis with new application of prior art, and the Office has supplied the new grounds for rejection attached below in the Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
However, the Office is still using Wang as the base reference thus will address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks “Wang nor Wang 2 disclosed or suggests assigning to a virtual vehicle a distance value measured relative to a merge zone, nor using such a merge-zone-indexed distance as the basis for subsequent collision analysis” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
It remains the Office’s stance that that cited prior still renders the claimed subject matter obvious. First, Wang clearly states “having an assigned distance value measured relative the merge zone” [Wang, ¶ 0029, 0039, and 0049-0050 with Figure 3]; where Wang states “calculates longitudinal positions for each vehicle based on their respective distance to the merging point 340” thus the distance is measured relative to the merge zone.
Further, “the assigned distance value corresponding to the distance of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane from the merge zone” [Wang, ¶ 0029, 0039, and 0049-0050 with Figure 3]; is captured in Wang when it states “calculates longitudinal positions for each vehicle based on their respective distance to the merging point 340” thus the Office respectfully disagrees.
Finally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wang clearly discloses collision avoidance, as mapped our previously and below “ and states “can determine a time-to-collision (TTC) based on the recommended acceleration and contextual state data (e.g., speed of the P1 vehicle, speed of the P2 vehicle, size of gap between P1 and P2, etc.), for example, based on Equation 1” Wang, ¶ 0071], yet as the Office action previously stated, Wang does not state probabilities. Wang2 states “single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096]. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and addressed.
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 claims no longer 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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0089164) in view of Wang et al (United States Patent Publication 2020/0247412)- (Wang2).
With respect to Claim 1: While Wang discloses “A method for driver assistance for a motor vehicle in a traffic situation” [Wang, ¶ 0028-0030 and Figure 3];
“in which, when two driving lanes merge, at least one vehicle enters from a merging lane into a driving lane in which an ego vehicle is driving” [Wang, ¶ 0028-0030 and Figure 3];
“having an environment sensor system for detecting a traffic environment” [Wang, ¶ 0028-0030, 0089-0094 and Figure 3];
“including the traffic in the merging lane” [Wang, ¶ 0028-0030, 0089-0094 and Figure 3];
“the method comprising the following steps” [Wang, ¶ 0028-0030 and Figure 3];
“A) determining a merge zone based on driving data of the ego vehicle in the driving lane and driving data of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“wherein at least a beginning of the merge zone determined: (i) by the environment sensor system and/or (ii) using map data in conjunction with locating of the ego vehicle or using traffic sign recognition” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0036, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“B) determining a distance of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane from the merge zone” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0036, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“C) defining at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane” [Wang, ¶ 0049-0050 and Figure 3];
“having an assigned distance value measured relative the merge zone” [Wang, ¶ 0029, 0039, and 0049-0050 with Figure 3];
“the assigned distance value corresponding to the distance of the at least
one vehicle in the merging lane from the merge zone” [Wang, ¶ 0029, 0039, and 0049-0050 with Figure 3];
“D) calculating an anticipated speed course of the at least one vehicle in the merge lane” [Wang, Abstract ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“wherein the anticipated speed course is used to calculate a speed course of the at least one virtual vehicle” [Wang, Abstract ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“and calculating from the speed course of the at least one virtual vehicle, a potential collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle in the merge zone” [Wang, Abstract ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071 and Figure 3];
“and E) (i) outputting an information signal to the driver of the ego vehicle in the driving lane, and/or (ii) automatically adjusting the driving data and/or carrying out a driving maneuver of the ego vehicle in the driving lane, based on data detected by the environment sensor system in relation to the at least one vehicle in the merging lane, the at least one virtual vehicle defined therefrom, and the calculated possibility of collision” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
“F) returning to step B) until the driving lane and the merging lane have merged” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071, 0080 and Figure 3];
“and either: (i) the at least one vehicle in the merging lane has entered the driving lane of the vehicle, or (ii) the vehicle in the driving lane has passed the merge zone before the at least one vehicle in the merging lane has entered the driving lane of the vehicle” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071, 0080 and Figure 3];
and while Wang discloses, cost functions, game theory, and collision avoidance based on collision determinations, Wang does not specifically state probabilies.
Wang2, which is in the same field of endeavor as Wang, and further teaches virtual vehicles being projected into mering lanes and further teaches “a single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096].
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 Wang2 into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles using game theory and possible vehicle collision calculations as Wang discloses but to also use collision probabilies for merging sections with simulated positions of vehicles as taught by Wang2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang2 into Wang to create a more robust system that not only uses game theory for working out collision avoidance but using known methods of collision prediction such as probabilities to determine cost metrics and improve safety and by doing so would “significantly improve the driving experience of the driver without distracting the attention of the driver from the road and increasing the likelihood of traffic accident” [Wang2, ¶ 0013]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein in step A), a course of curvature of the merging lane is determined: (i) by the environment sensor system and/or (ii) using the map data in conjunction with locating of the vehicle or using the traffic sign recognition” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086 and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 3: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein, to detect the traffic environment, the environment sensor system detects the traffic environment of an adjacent lane” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086, 0089-0094, and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 4:
Optional/Alternative Language
Claim 1 states multiple “and/or” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 4 depends, does not require “outputting an information signal to the driver of the vehicle in the driving lane” since this option is based on “and/or”. Regarding the conditional phrase “and/or”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since the “outputting an information signal to the driver of the vehicle in the driving lane” of the limitations of Claim 1 are not required/selected, these limitations will be omitted and any other further claims depending on said limitations will be omitted as well, as being optional and not chosen.
With respect to Claim 4: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the information signal controls an acoustic and/or a visual display.” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086, 0089-0094, and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 6:
Optional/Alternative Language
Claim 1 states multiple “and/or” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 6 depends, does not require “outputting an information signal to the driver of the vehicle in the driving lane” since this option is based on “and/or”. Regarding the conditional phrase “and/or”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since the “outputting an information signal to the driver of the vehicle in the driving lane” of the limitations of Claim 1 are not required/selected, these limitations will be omitted and any other further claims depending on said limitations will be omitted as well, as being optional and not chosen.
With respect to Claim 6: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the information signal is generated depending on signals of at least one sensor of the environment sensor system for monitoring a rear space in an adjacent lane behind the vehicle in the driving lane and at least one sensor of the environment sensor system for monitoring the adjacent lane at a level of the vehicle in the driving lane and at least one sensor of the environment sensor system for monitoring a front region of the adjacent lane” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086, 0089-0094, and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 7: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 1, wherein the driving data of the vehicle in the driving lane and the driving data of the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane include a speed and acceleration of the vehicle in the driving lane and a speed and acceleration of the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071, 0080 and Figure 3];
“wherein driving data of the at least one virtual vehicle are obtained from the driving data of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0071, 0080 and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 8: While Wang discloses “The method according to claim 7, wherein the possibility of collision between the vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane is determined from the speed and the acceleration of the vehicle in the driving lane and a current speed, assumed to be constant” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
“of the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane, and the driving data and/or driving maneuvers carried out by the vehicle in the driving lane are adjusted based on the possibility of collision” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
and while Wang discloses, cost functions, game theory, and collision avoidance based on collision determinations, Wang does not specifically state probabilies.
Wang2, which is in the same field of endeavor as Wang, and further teaches virtual vehicles being projected into mering lanes and further teaches “a single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096].
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 Wang2 into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles using game theory and possible vehicle collision calculations as Wang discloses but to also use collision probabilies for merging sections with simulated positions of vehicles as taught by Wang2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang2 into Wang to create a more robust system that not only uses game theory for working out collision avoidance but using known methods of collision prediction such as probabilities to determine cost metrics and improve safety and by doing so would “significantly improve the driving experience of the driver without distracting the attention of the driver from the road and increasing the likelihood of traffic accident” [Wang2, ¶ 0013]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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 9: While Wang discloses “The method according to claim 7, wherein characterized in that a possibility of collision between the vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane is determined from the current speed and an anticipated speed course of the vehicle in the driving lane and the current speed and the anticipated speed course of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
“and thus the anticipated speed course of the at least one virtual vehicle in the driving lane, wherein the driving data and/or a driving maneuver carried out by the vehicle in the driving lane are adjusted based on the possibility of collision” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
and while Wang discloses, cost functions, game theory, and collision avoidance based on collision determinations, Wang does not specifically state probabilies.
Wang2, which is in the same field of endeavor as Wang, and further teaches virtual vehicles being projected into mering lanes and further teaches “a single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096].
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 Wang2 into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles using game theory and possible vehicle collision calculations as Wang discloses but to also use collision probabilies for merging sections with simulated positions of vehicles as taught by Wang2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang2 into Wang to create a more robust system that not only uses game theory for working out collision avoidance but using known methods of collision prediction such as probabilities to determine cost metrics and improve safety and by doing so would “significantly improve the driving experience of the driver without distracting the attention of the driver from the road and increasing the likelihood of traffic accident” [Wang2, ¶ 0013]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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 10: Wang discloses “The method according to claim 9, wherein a course of curvature of the merge zone is determined by the environment sensor system and/or map data in conjunction with locating of the vehicle in the driving lane, and is taken into account in the calculation of the anticipated speed course” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086 and Figure 3].
With respect to Claim 12: While Wang discloses “The method according to claim 8, wherein, when there is no possibility of collision, a speed of the vehicle in the driving lane is thus not changed” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086 and Figure 3];
and while Wang discloses, cost functions, game theory, and collision avoidance based on collision determinations, Wang does not specifically state probabilies.
Wang2, which is in the same field of endeavor as Wang, and further teaches virtual vehicles being projected into mering lanes and further teaches “a single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096].
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 Wang2 into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles using game theory and possible vehicle collision calculations as Wang discloses but to also use collision probabilies for merging sections with simulated positions of vehicles as taught by Wang2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang2 into Wang to create a more robust system that not only uses game theory for working out collision avoidance but using known methods of collision prediction such as probabilities to determine cost metrics and improve safety and by doing so would “significantly improve the driving experience of the driver without distracting the attention of the driver from the road and increasing the likelihood of traffic accident” [Wang2, ¶ 0013]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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 13: While Wang discloses “The method according to claim 8, wherein, when a possibility of collision exists, one of the following scenarios occurs: a lane change to an adjacent lane of the vehicle in the driving lane is effected when the environment sensor system determines a sufficiently large gap in the adjacent lane, a speed of the vehicle in the driving lane is increased or decreased to achieve or maintain a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle driving ahead in the driving lane, a speed of the vehicle in the driving lane is increased in order to overtake the virtual vehicle driving ahead prior to reaching the merge zone, a differential speed between the vehicle in the driving lane and the virtual vehicle driving ahead in the driving lane is limited” [Wang, ¶ 0027-0030, 0034-0038, 0049-0050, 0065, 0071 and Figure 3];
and while Wang discloses, cost functions, game theory, and collision avoidance based on collision determinations, Wang does not specifically state probabilies.
Wang2, which is in the same field of endeavor as Wang, and further teaches virtual vehicles being projected into mering lanes and further teaches “a single probability of collision between the ego vehicle in the driving lane and the at least one virtual vehicle before and within the merge zone” [Wang2, ¶ 0096].
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 Wang2 into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles using game theory and possible vehicle collision calculations as Wang discloses but to also use collision probabilies for merging sections with simulated positions of vehicles as taught by Wang2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Wang2 into Wang to create a more robust system that not only uses game theory for working out collision avoidance but using known methods of collision prediction such as probabilities to determine cost metrics and improve safety and by doing so would “significantly improve the driving experience of the driver without distracting the attention of the driver from the road and increasing the likelihood of traffic accident” [Wang2, ¶ 0013]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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 14: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-4, 5-10, and 12-13. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 14 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-4, 5-10, and 12-13. Therefore Claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 15: all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in Claims 1-4, 5-10, and 12-13. The device taught/disclosed in Claim 15 can clearly perform the method of Claims 1-4, 5-10, and 12-13. Therefore Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0089164) in view of Wang et al (United States Patent Publication 2020/0247412)- (Wang2), and in further view of Shibasaki (United States Patent Publication 2020/0279488).
With respect to Claim 11: While Wang discloses “The method according to claim 9, wherein information about a vehicle of the at least one vehicle in the merging lane is recognized by the sensor system and taken into account in the calculation of the anticipated speed course” [Wang, ¶ 0020, 0039, 0049-0050, 0086 and Figure 3];
Wang does not state that information about the type of vehicle is used when calculating the anticipated speed course.
Shibasaki, which is also a vehicle merger system teaches “wherein information about a vehicle type” [Shibasaki, ¶ 0031-0032].
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 Shibasaki into the invention of Wang to not only include gathering data about the environment, other vehicles, and even virtual vehicles for proper merging of vehicles as Wang discloses but to also account for vehicle types when merging as taught by Shibasaki with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Shibasaki into Wang to create a more robust system that can’t only account for vehicles, but their distinct attributes as well, thus creating a more robust system. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as gathering data for proper merging 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.
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
Prosecution Insights