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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: They recite “guided by the device for maneuver assistance device”. It seems the last word device could be eliminated. Appropriate response or correction is respectfully required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 and its dependents (claims 3, 7, and 8) and claim 11 and its dependent (claim 14) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “low speeds” in claims 2 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "low speeds" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Paragraph 0006 of the published present disclosure, Schnarr et al. (US2024/0416902), that “the line between low speeds and high speeds cannot be defined by a fixed speed threshold”. The end of the paragraph appears to teach that the highest speed that could still be categorized as “low speed” might be “20 km/h”. Yet claim 13 recites that “the maximum speed being limited to 10 km/h or 5 km/h.” Therefore, for examination purposes, “low speeds” will be considered 10 km/h or less.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cui (US2021/0107476).
Regarding claim 1, Cui discloses:
A safety apparatus for a vehicle, the vehicle including (see Fig. 1A)
a device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance of the vehicle for automatic maneuvering of the vehicle (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0002 for an autonomous vehicle (AV) with “cross-traffic monitoring,” “collision avoidance,” and “turning, and/or automatic distance controlling”. ),
at least one surroundings sensor system (see paragraph 0032), and
actuating units for actuating:
(i) a vehicle steering system, and/or
(ii) vehicle drive devices, and/or
(iii) vehicle deceleration devices (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0032 for the vehicle including steering, braking, and throttle actuators),
the safety apparatus being configured to:
when the device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance maneuvers the vehicle into a traffic space being traveled in, and the surroundings sensor system detects a moving object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the safety apparatus is configured to
brake the host vehicle to a standstill,
change a direction of travel of the host vehicle, and
maneuver the vehicle back along a travel path until the probability of collision is minimized (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0082, which implies that the host vehicle 1510 will start moving forward, then stop, then reverse, when it detects a collision when pulling out into an intersection. The context is shown in Fig. 15, in which the host vehicle, vehicle 1510, is stopped at a stop sign. A second vehicle 1520 approaches the four-way stop intersection after the host vehicle, but fails to yield. The paragraph teaches that the host vehicle 1510 has several options as to what to do. One option is that the vehicle 1510 will “not proceed”. This can be reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the vehicle has already started its forward course but will then will not proceed on this course in order to avoid the collision. The paragraph then teaches that the host vehicle can alternatively “speed up”. This strongly implies that vehicle 1510 is already moving. This, in turn, further supports the interpretation that when the vehicle chooses to “not proceed” it was, in fact, already moving at some speed, because the vehicle can also chose to “speed up” instead. Then the paragraph teaches that the vehicle actually has three options. It can either “not proceed,” “speed up” “or back up if safe to do so to avoid a collision with the second vehicle 1520.” Why would the vehicle 1510 need to back up if it had not already traveled forward? According to “Fig. 15” the host vehicle 1510 is stopped at the stop line. If the second vehicle 1520 continues to on its current path in Fig. 15 the vehicle will reach the position shown in “Fig. 15 (continued).” If the host vehicle 1510 had not moved forward at all at some point between the images Fig. 15 and Fig. 15 (continued) it would not need to “back up”. But backing up is presented as an explicit option. Therefore, Cui paragraph 0082 and Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) can reasonably be interpreted to teach that the host vehicle stops at an intersection, begins to move forward, detects a collision, stops, and reverses to avoid a collision with vehicle 1520 who runs the stop sign.).
Regarding claim 2, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 1.
Cui further discloses:
The safety apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that
the device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance of the vehicle is a device for maneuver assistance at low speeds (see paragraph 0082. See also paragraph 0002 for an autonomous vehicle (AV) with “cross-traffic monitoring”. Because the system works when the host vehicle is just pulling off the stop line in Fig. 15, it “is a device for maneuver assistance at low speeds,” as recited in the present claim. The examiner notes here that this claim does not restrict the guidance operation at high speeds, it just requires that it is a device that works at low speeds.).
Regarding claim 5, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 1.
Cui further discloses:
The safety apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the traffic space being traveled in is a lane of a road or an intersection region of a road intersection (see Fig. 15 and paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 6, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 1.
Cui further discloses:
The safety apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the probability of collision results from
a direction of movement of the object and the vehicle, their speeds and a possibility of avoiding the collision (see paragraph 0023 for the host vehicle determining that another vehicle disregards a right of way and then the host vehicle taking an action based on “a likelihood of avoiding a collision” with the another vehicle. See also paragraph 0073 for the host vehicle predicting trajectories of vehicles “based at least in part on respective speeds”. See also claims 1 and 2. See paragraph 0082 for the host vehicle determining whether it should speed up, stop, or reverse. Based on the teaching of speeding up or reversing it seems unreasonable to the examiner to think that Cui does not determine a TTC and then determine an appropriate reaction. Doing so is so well known in the art as to go unstated explicitly in Cui. See also Cui paragraph 0072 for the vehicle taking actions to “reduce or eliminate a possibility of a collision”.).
Regarding claim 9, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 1.
Cui further discloses:
The safety apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one surroundings sensor system includes:
(i) radar sensors, or
(ii) video sensors, or
(ii) ultrasonic sensors, or
(iv) lidar sensors, or
(v) a combination of radar and/or video and/or ultrasonic and/or lidar sensor types, which are attached to the vehicle corners of the vehicle in such a way that they detect regions in front of and/or behind the vehicle (see Fig. 1A for items 102, 104, and 106 and paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Cui discloses:
A method for operating a safety apparatus for a vehicle (see the title for a system and method. See Fig. 1A),
the vehicle having a device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance of the vehicle for automatic maneuvering of the vehicle (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0002 for an autonomous vehicle (AV) with “cross-traffic monitoring,” “collision avoidance,” and “turning, and/or automatic distance controlling”.),
the safety apparatus being supplied with signals from at least one surroundings sensor system (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 0032), and
the vehicle includes actuating units of:
(i) a vehicle steering system, and/or
(ii) vehicle drive devices, and/or
(iii) vehicle deceleration devices, which can be actuated in order to guide the vehicle automatically (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0032 for the vehicle including steering, braking, and throttle actuators),
the method comprising:
when the device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance maneuvers the vehicle into a traffic space being traveled in and the surroundings sensor system detects a moving object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle:
braking the host vehicle to a standstill;
changing a direction of travel of the vehicle; and
maneuvering the host vehicle back along a path until the probability of collision is minimized (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0082, which implies that the host vehicle 1510 will start moving forward, then stop, then reverse, when it detects a collision when pulling out into an intersection. The context is shown in Fig. 15, in which the host vehicle, vehicle 1510, is stopped at a stop sign. A second vehicle 1520 approaches the four-way stop intersection after the host vehicle, but fails to yield. The paragraph teaches that the host vehicle 1510 has several options as to what to do. One option is that the vehicle 1510 will “not proceed”. This can be reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the vehicle has already started its forward course but will then will not proceed on this course in order to avoid the collision. The paragraph then teaches that the host vehicle can alternatively “speed up”. This strongly implies that vehicle 1510 is already moving. This, in turn, further supports the interpretation that when the vehicle chooses to “not proceed” it was, in fact, already moving at some speed, because the vehicle can also chose to “speed up” instead. Then the paragraph teaches that the vehicle actually has three options. It can either “not proceed,” “speed up” “or back up if safe to do so to avoid a collision with the second vehicle 1520.” Why would the vehicle 1510 need to back up if it had not already traveled forward? According to “Fig. 15” the host vehicle 1510 is stopped at the stop line. If the second vehicle 1520 continues to on its current path in Fig. 15 the vehicle will reach the position shown in “Fig. 15 (continued).” If the host vehicle 1510 had not moved forward at all at some point between the images Fig. 15 and Fig. 15 (continued) it would not need to “back up”. But backing up is presented as an explicit option. Therefore, Cui paragraph 0082 and Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) can reasonably be interpreted to teach that the host vehicle stops at an intersection, begins to move forward, detects a collision, stops, and reverses to avoid a collision with vehicle 1520 who runs the stop sign.).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 2, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 5, which is substantially similar.
Regarding claim 16, Cui discloses:
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program for operating a safety apparatus for a vehicle (see Figs. 1A and 1B),
the vehicle having a device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance of the vehicle for automatic maneuvering of the vehicle (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0002 for an autonomous vehicle (AV) with “cross-traffic monitoring,” “collision avoidance,” and “turning, and/or automatic distance controlling”.),
the safety apparatus being supplied with signals from at least one surroundings sensor system (see Fig. 1A and paragraph 0032), and
the vehicle includes actuating units of:
(i) a vehicle steering system, and/or
(ii) vehicle drive devices, and/or
(iii) vehicle deceleration devices, which be actuated in order to guide the vehicle automatically (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0032 for the vehicle including steering, braking, and throttle actuators),
the computer program, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps:
when the device for automated longitudinal and lateral guidance maneuvers the vehicle into a traffic space being traveled in and the surroundings sensor system detects a moving object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle:
braking the host vehicle to a standstill;
changing a direction of travel of the vehicle; and
maneuvering the host vehicle back along a path until the probability of collision is minimized (for all these bullets, see paragraph 0082, which implies that the host vehicle 1510 will start moving forward, then stop, then reverse, when it detects a collision when pulling out into an intersection. The context is shown in Fig. 15, in which the host vehicle, vehicle 1510, is stopped at a stop sign. A second vehicle 1520 approaches the four-way stop intersection after the host vehicle, but fails to yield. The paragraph teaches that the host vehicle 1510 has several options as to what to do. One option is that the vehicle 1510 will “not proceed”. This can be reasonably be interpreted to suggest that the vehicle has already started its forward course but will then will not proceed on this course in order to avoid the collision. The paragraph then teaches that the host vehicle can alternatively “speed up”. This strongly implies that vehicle 1510 is already moving. This, in turn, further supports the interpretation that when the vehicle chooses to “not proceed” it was, in fact, already moving at some speed, because the vehicle can also chose to “speed up” instead. Then the paragraph teaches that the vehicle actually has three options. It can either “not proceed,” “speed up” “or back up if safe to do so to avoid a collision with the second vehicle 1520.” Why would the vehicle 1510 need to back up if it had not already traveled forward? According to “Fig. 15” the host vehicle 1510 is stopped at the stop line. If the second vehicle 1520 continues to on its current path in Fig. 15 the vehicle will reach the position shown in “Fig. 15 (continued).” If the host vehicle 1510 had not moved forward at all at some point between the images Fig. 15 and Fig. 15 (continued) it would not need to “back up”. But backing up is presented as an explicit option. Therefore, Cui paragraph 0082 and Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) can reasonably be interpreted to teach that the host vehicle stops at an intersection, begins to move forward, detects a collision, stops, and reverses to avoid a collision with vehicle 1520 who runs the stop sign.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Shin et al. (US2024/0075931).
Regarding claim 3, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 2.
Cui teaches:
The safety apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle (see paragraph 0023 for the host vehicle determining that another vehicle disregards a right of way and then the host vehicle “taking an action based on a likelihood of avoiding a collision with the another vehicle.”), the safety apparatus is configured to
brake the host vehicle a standstill (see Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) and paragraph 0082),
change the direction of travel (see Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) and paragraph 0082), and
Yet Cui does not further teach:
The safety apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the vehicle has a detection unit for detecting a path traveled, a memory for storing a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement during the path traveled and,
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the safety apparatus is configured to
maneuver the host vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance device.
However, Shin teaches:
the vehicle has a detection unit for detecting a path traveled (see Fig. 1 items 110 and 125), a memory for storing a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement during the path traveled (see Fig. 1 item 124) and,
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the safety apparatus is configured to
maneuver the host vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance device (see paragraph 0005 for a system for “controlling the reverse path to be the same as the immediately previous driving path based on an estimated previous driving trajectory (immediately previous forward path) recorded using a vehicle speed sensor and a steering angle sensor when the vehicle needs to reverse on the same path it just traveled, and the like have been proposed.”).
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 the system, as taught by Cui, to add the additional features of the vehicle has a detection unit for detecting a path traveled, a memory for storing a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement during the path traveled and, upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the safety apparatus is configured to maneuver the host vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance device, as taught by Shin. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid hitting obstacles while reversing, as recognized by Shin (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, Cui teaches in paragraph 0082 a system that will “back up if safe to do so,” emphasis added. Cui does not further define how it determines whether or not it is safe to do so, but Cui at least acknowledges the need to back only when it is safe. Shin merely adds that, based on the felt need to back up only if safe to do so, a system can determine a safe path by recording the forward motion of the host vehicle and back track along it when reversing. Therefore, if the host vehicle in Cui is surrounded by other obstacles when it needs to reverse, such as something like what is shown in Shin Fig. 6, which is entirely reasonable, the vehicle in Cui can backup using the technology disclosed by Shin.
Regarding claim 7, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 2.
Cui further discloses:
The safety apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the safety apparatus is configured to maneuver the vehicle back
until a risk of collision no longer exists (see Cui paragraph 0072 for the host vehicle taking actions “reduce or eliminate a possibility of a collision”. See also paragraph 0082 for those actions including reversing the vehicle. Note that here and elsewhere the examiner has double-lined through clauses in order to clearly show in the record in the interest of compact prosecution what the examiner is arguing the applied reference does and does not teach.).
Yet Cui does not further teach:
the safety apparatus is configured to maneuver the vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance.
However, Shin teaches:
the safety apparatus is configured to maneuver the vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance (see paragraph 0005 for a system for “controlling the reverse path to be the same as the immediately previous driving path based on an estimated previous driving trajectory (immediately previous forward path) recorded using a vehicle speed sensor and a steering angle sensor when the vehicle needs to reverse on the same path it just traveled, and the like have been proposed.”).
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 the system, as taught by Cui, to add the additional features of the safety apparatus is configured to maneuver the host vehicle back along a stored path traveled along which the host vehicle was guided by the device for maneuver assistance, as taught by Shin. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid hitting obstacles while reversing, as recognized by Shin (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 8, Cui and Shin teach the safety apparatus according to claim 7.
Yet Cui does not further teach:
The safety apparatus according to claim 7, wherein,
during the maneuvering of the vehicle back along the stored path, a detection region of the surroundings sensor system is monitored using the at least one surroundings sensor system and,
if a further object is detected within the stored path, safety apparatus is configured
to brake the host vehicle to a standstill or
to maneuver the host vehicle around the detected further object.
However, Shin teaches:
during the maneuvering of the vehicle back along the stored path, a detection region of the surroundings sensor system is monitored using the at least one surroundings sensor system (see Fig. 7, S707) and,
if a further object is detected within the stored path, safety apparatus is configured
to brake the host vehicle to a standstill (see Fig. 7, S708) or
to maneuver the host vehicle around the detected further object.
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 the system, as taught by Cui and Shin, to add the additional features of during the maneuvering of the vehicle back along the stored path, a detection region of the surroundings sensor system is monitored using the at least one surroundings sensor system and, if a further object is detected within the stored path, safety apparatus is configured to brake the host vehicle to a standstill, as taught by Shin. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid hitting obstacles while reversing, as recognized by Shin (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 12, Cui discloses the safety apparatus according to claim 10.
Cui teaches:
The method according to claim 10, wherein
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle (see paragraph 0023 for the host vehicle determining that another vehicle disregards a right of way and then the host vehicle “taking an action based on a likelihood of avoiding a collision with the another vehicle.”), the host vehicle is
braked to a standstill (see Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) and paragraph 0082),
the direction of travel is changed (see Figs. 15 and 15 (continued) and paragraph 0082).
Yet Cui does not further teach:
a path traveled by the vehicle is detected in a detection unit, a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement while the path is being traveled, and the path traveled, are stored in a memory, and,
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the host vehicle is
the host vehicle is maneuvered back along the stored path along which the host vehicle was guided.
However, Shin teaches:
a path traveled by the vehicle is detected in a detection unit, a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement while the path is being traveled, and the path traveled, are stored in a memory (see Fig. 1 items 110, 124, and 125), and,
upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the host vehicle is
the host vehicle is maneuvered back along the stored path along which the host vehicle was guided (see paragraph 0005 for a system for “controlling the reverse path to be the same as the immediately previous driving path based on an estimated previous driving trajectory (immediately previous forward path) recorded using a vehicle speed sensor and a steering angle sensor when the vehicle needs to reverse on the same path it just traveled, and the like have been proposed.”).
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 the system, as taught by Cui, to add the additional features of a path traveled by the vehicle is detected in a detection unit, a longitudinal movement and a lateral movement while the path is being traveled, and the path traveled, are stored in a memory, and, upon detection of the object that has a probability of collision with the host vehicle, the host vehicle is the host vehicle is maneuvered back along the stored path along which the host vehicle was guided, as taught by Shin. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid hitting obstacles while reversing, as recognized by Shin (see paragraph 0004).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Kondo et al. (US2019/0377059).
Regarding claim 4, Cui teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 1.
Yet Cui does not further teach:
The safety apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the device for maneuver assistance is:
(i) an automatic parking space exit system for removing the vehicle from a parking space, or
(ii) a Front Cross Traffic Assist (FCTA) for exiting a driveway or for entering an intersection.
However, Kondo teaches:
the device for maneuver assistance is:
(i) an automatic parking space exit system for removing the vehicle from a parking space, or
(ii) a Front Cross Traffic Assist (FCTA) for exiting a driveway or for entering an intersection (see paragraph 0113).
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 the system, as taught by Cui, to add the additional features of a Front Cross Traffic Assist (FCTA) for exiting a driveway or for entering an intersection, as taught by Kondo. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid collisions, as recognized by Kondo (see paragraph 0062).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
In summary, the system taught by Cui is essentially a FCTA, but Cui does not call it that explicitly. Kondo cures that slight deficiency.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 4, which is substantially similar.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Kondo in further view of Günzel et al. (US2022/0080970).
Regarding claim 13, Cui teaches the method according to claim 12.
Yet Cui does not further teach:
The method according to claim 12, wherein
the maneuvering of the vehicle and/or the maneuvering back of the vehicle is only possible up to a predetermined maximum speed,
the maximum speed being limited to 10 km/h or 5 km/h.
However, Kondo teaches:
the maneuvering of the vehicle and/or the maneuvering back of the vehicle is only possible up to a predetermined maximum speed (see paragraph 0062 for the teaching that the system may “differ depending on the running conditions of the host vehicle V1” The disclosure teaches that “When the host vehicle V1 is traveling at a relatively low speed in the vicinity of an intersection, a parking lot and the like, the host vehicle V1 should detect vehicles crossing the front or the rear of the host vehicle V1 and avoid a collision with detected vehicles. On the other hand, when the host vehicle V1 is traveling on the road at a relatively high speed…the host vehicle V1 should detect other vehicles approaching the host vehicle V1 from the front or the rear and avoid a collision with the detected other vehicles.).
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 the system, as taught by Cui, to add the additional features of the maneuvering of the vehicle and/or the maneuvering back of the vehicle is only possible up to a predetermined maximum speed, as taught by Kondo. The motivation for doing so would be to avoid collisions that relate to the speed of the vehicle, as recognized by Kondo (see paragraph 0062).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Yet Cui and Kondo do not further teach that:
the maximum speed being limited to 10 km/h or 5 km/h.
However, Günzel teaches that:
the maximum speed being limited to 10 km/h or 5 km/h (see paragraph 0038 for a system that records the forward motion of a vehicle over the last 50 meters and then allows the vehicle to back up along that same trajectory “at a speed of less than 35 km/h, for example.” This “for example” shows that Günzel contemplates that other speeds are possible, such as those in the present clause, which itself provides different speeds as examples.).
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 the system, as taught by Cui and Kondo, to add the additional features the maximum speed being limited to 10 km/h or 5 km/h, as taught by Günzel. The motivation for doing so would be to increase safety, as recognized by Günzel (see paragraph 0010).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied on in the rejections, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Konrardy et al. (U.S. 11,242,051). See Fig. 5, and especially step 510, for determining that “vehicles will collide”. See step 512 for identifying a maneuver to avoid the collision. See col. 33, lines 40-41 for “the maneuver may including…reversing, and/or any other suitable maneuver to avoid the path of the second autonomous vehicle 182.” See col. 30, lines 61-67 for both vehicles moving before a collision determination is made, and an avoidance maneuver in block 512 determined. See also col. 33, lines 9-10 for both vehicles moving “at the same speed”. Since both vehicles are moving, the host vehicle must stop before reversing. See col. 31, line 43 and 60 for the autonomous vehicle 182 being at “an intersection” or approaching “an upcoming intersection”. Konrardy teaches that backing up requires doing so without a collision. See col. 33, line 43 for “reversing” to avoid a collision. Then see col. 30, lines 51-59 for identifying avoidance paths for the host vehicle to travel “without colliding with any of the other vehicles” on the road.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665