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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 211 251.2, filed on 10/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 02, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (US 20230415749 A1) in view of Sugawara et al. (US 20170341652 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba teaches a method for operating a driving assistant (FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an automatic driving planning unit; [0015]) for longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
evaluating a traffic situation in an adjacent lane of the motor vehicle (the blind-spot region is defined as a state in which it is not possible to detect the back of an object due to a surrounding vehicle 1901 existing around the host vehicle 81; [0069]);
However, Inaba does not teach performing automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed; making a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane.
Sugawara teaches performing automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed (The present embodiment is a vehicle control system that sets a maximum relative speed based on a speed distribution of a lane to which the vehicle is about to travel; [0071]); making a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane (In S1702, a target acceleration is computed so as to reduce a relative speed. For example, in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; see [0077] and Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order to include the automated longitudinal guidance at a relative maximum speed while considering a traffic situation and the risks in the current lane of the vehicle to increase the relative maximum speed to avoid a potential collision.
Regarding claim 2, Inaba in view of Sugawara teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes evaluating a road user in the adjacent lane, the road user driving substantially alongside the motor vehicle (in trajectory intersection determination S803, an overlap determination between the potential risk map and the generated lane-change trajectory is performed; [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Inaba in view of Sugawara teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluating includes evaluating a driving profile and/or a driving behavior of a road user in the adjacent lane (The potential risk map generation unit 309 generates a region having a potential risk that the host vehicle 81 approaches the object based on the behavior trend of the object estimated by the blind-spot object estimation processing unit 311; [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Inaba teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the decision regarding the increase in the relative maximum speed takes into account whether an alternative driving maneuver can resolve the risk situation.
Sugawara teaches wherein the decision regarding the increase in the relative maximum speed takes into account whether an alternative driving maneuver can resolve the risk situation (When the vehicle speed is high, as illustrated in FIG. 13, the required detection distance becomes small and the detectable limit distance becomes larger than the required detection distance. Thus, in the second lane change possibility determination, it is determined that the lane change is possible and the automatic lane change control is performed; [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order to have a set maximum speed while considering a traffic situation to change lanes and maneuver through traffic safely.
Regarding claim 5, Inaba in view of Sugawara teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein a braking maneuver is evaluated as the alternative driving maneuver that can resolve the risk situation (When there is a blind-spot region 1903 on a road through which the host vehicle 81 is about to pass, an object may jump out from the blind-spot region 1903, and it is considered that emergency stop is necessary to prevent a probability of collision with the host vehicle 81 and collision with the object; [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Inaba in view of Sugawara teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein a lane change maneuver is evaluated as the alternative driving maneuver that can resolve the risk situation (The automatic driving planning unit 201 generates a lane-change trajectory of the host vehicle 81 from the peripheral state of the host vehicle 81 and the map information, compares the generated lane-change trajectory with the potential risk map, and determines whether or not the lane change of the host vehicle 81 is possible; [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Inaba teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the decision regarding the increase in the relative maximum speed takes into account whether an increase in the relative maximum speed can be carried out.
Sugawara teaches wherein the decision regarding the increase in the relative maximum speed takes into account whether an increase in the relative maximum speed can be carried out (in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara to have the ability to increase vehicle speed for lane changing situations.
Regarding claim 8, Inaba teaches the method according to claim 7, but does not teach wherein a traffic situation of the motor vehicle is evaluated in order to check feasibility of the increase in the relative maximum speed.
Sugawara teaches wherein a traffic situation of the motor vehicle is evaluated in order to check feasibility of the increase in the relative maximum speed (in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order for the vehicle to adapt to traffic by increasing vehicle speed such as in overtaking/passing scenarios.
Regarding claim 9, Inaba teaches the method according to claim 8, but does not teach wherein a driving situation of the motor vehicle is evaluated in order to check the feasibility of the increase in the relative maximum speed.
Sugawara teaches wherein a driving situation of the motor vehicle is evaluated in order to check the feasibility of the increase in the relative maximum speed (in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order to adapt to the driving/traffic situation and increase vehicle speed to overtake another vehicle or avoid a collision.
Regarding claim 10, Inaba teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
executing the increase in the relative maximum speed to resolve the risk situation;
adapting a speed of the motor vehicle after the resolution of the risk situation;
continuing the automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in the first lane.
Regarding claim 11, Inaba teaches a device configured to operate a driving assistant for longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle (FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an automatic driving planning unit; [0015]), the device configured to:
evaluate a traffic situation in an adjacent lane of the motor vehicle (the blind-spot region is defined as a state in which it is not possible to detect the back of an object due to a surrounding vehicle 1901 existing around the host vehicle 81; [0069]);
However, Inaba does not teach the device configured to: perform automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed; make a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane.
Sugawara teaches the device configured to: perform automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed (The present embodiment is a vehicle control system that sets a maximum relative speed based on a speed distribution of a lane to which the vehicle is about to travel; [0071]); make a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane (In S1702, a target acceleration is computed so as to reduce a relative speed. For example, in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; see [0077] and Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order to include the automated longitudinal guidance at a relative maximum speed while considering a traffic situation and the risks in the current lane of the vehicle to increase the relative maximum speed to avoid a potential collision.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (US 20230415749 A1) in view of Sugawara et al. (US 20170341652 A1) in further view of Kume (US 20240375674 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Inaba teaches
evaluating a traffic situation in an adjacent lane of the motor vehicle (the blind-spot region is defined as a state in which it is not possible to detect the back of an object due to a surrounding vehicle 1901 existing around the host vehicle 81; [0069]);
However, Inaba does not teach performing automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed; making a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane.
Sugawara teaches performing automated longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle in a first lane at a relative maximum speed (The present embodiment is a vehicle control system that sets a maximum relative speed based on a speed distribution of a lane to which the vehicle is about to travel; [0071]); making a decision regarding an increase in the relative maximum speed taking into account an identified risk situation for the motor vehicle due to the traffic situation in the adjacent lane (In S1702, a target acceleration is computed so as to reduce a relative speed. For example, in a case that the lane change cannot be performed since the relative speed with the hypothetical vehicle is large, the vehicle speed can be increased up to the speed that enables the lane change in the above process; see [0077] and Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Sugawara in order to include the automated longitudinal guidance at a relative maximum speed while considering a traffic situation and the risks in the current lane of the vehicle to increase the relative maximum speed to avoid a potential collision.
Inaba further does not teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program. However, Kume teaches this limitation (The computer program may be stored in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable recording medium as an instruction to be executed by a computer; [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Inaba to incorporate the teachings of Kume in order to include a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program in order to have the ability to hold various programs executed by the processing unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK K LY whose telephone number is (571)272-5831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-16:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/KENDRICK K LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666