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 .
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.
Claims 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is a method claim that comprises a conditional limitation at line 7 which recites “if the driving risk data…” Claims 6-10 are also method claims which comprise conditional “if” statements. It is unclear whether the limitations subsequent the conditional “if” statements are actually intended to be positively claimed or not. The claims will be examined under the assumption that these limitations are intended to be positively claimed, and that the indefinite language will be corrected in a subsequent amendment. Should said amendment not be made, the claims will be examined in the alternative in the subsequent office action under the assumption the “if” statements are not intended to be positively claimed. Claims 2-11 are at least rejected by virtue of their dependency from rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al (US 9701307).
Regarding claim 1, Newman discloses a system and method for estimating a lane changing intention of a target vehicle, comprising:
detecting the target vehicle and at least one peripheral vehicle of the target vehicle using at least one sensor installed at a host vehicle (see at least figure 4 and column 36 line 57 to column 37 line 20 which illustrates other detected vehicles on all sides of the subject vehicle 401);
accumulating driving risk data of the target vehicle with respect to the at least one peripheral vehicle while the target vehicle is driving straight (see at least column 14 lines 38-54 which discloses the constant tracking of threat levels, which is equivalent to accumulating driving risk data, based on the surrounding vehicles behavior);
determining whether the driving risk data has been accumulated for a predetermined time (see at least column 15 lines 17-34 which teaches a predetermined time limit can be used for threat level assessment);
if the driving risk data has been accumulated for the predetermined time, generating a risk adaptability model based on the driving risk data (via the multiple predictive models disclosed in Newman, see at least column 10 line 58 to column 11 line 54, column 24 line 47 to column 25 line 20);
estimating the lane changing intention of the target vehicle based on the risk adaptability model (see at least column 11 line 1 to 28 and column 25 line 3-20 which discloses the means of determining intent of a driver to change lanes); and
controlling the host vehicle based on the lane changing intention of the target vehicle (controlling the vehicle for accident avoidance is taught throughout Newman).
Regarding claim 2, Newman discloses the detecting of the target vehicle is performed by detecting a vehicle in front or in front side of the host vehicle using the at least one sensor installed at the host vehicle (see at least column 22 lines 7-20 which discloses various sensors of Newman disposed on the own vehicle and used for sensing vehicles and obstacles in the vicinity of the own vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Newman discloses the risk adaptability model is a probability-based model, and the driving risk data is data based on a distance and a relative speed between the target vehicle and the at least one peripheral vehicle while the target vehicle is driving straight (see at least column 22 line 35-42).
Regarding claim 4, Newman discloses the predetermined time is 5 seconds or more (see at least column 7 lines 4-21 which teaches various possible intervals in seconds of threat situations which need to be mitigated).
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses the driving risk data is accumulated for each of the at least one peripheral vehicle of the target vehicle (see again at least column 7 lines 4-21 which teaches various possible intervals in seconds of threat situations which need to be mitigated based on multiple vehicles in the vicinity of the own vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Newman discloses the estimating of the lane changing intention comprises determining whether newly obtained driving risk data is fit for the risk adaptability model, and estimating that the target vehicle does not have the lane changing intention if the newly obtained driving risk data is fit for the risk adaptability model (at least column 49 lines 42-57 teaches the claimed scenario).
Regarding claim 7, Newman discloses if it is detected that the target vehicle changed a driving lane, newly obtained driving risk data is not accumulated (see again at least column 11 lines 1-28, if the vehicle has made the lane change, and is traveling normally again, it may be monitored but does not trigger the threat level).
Regarding claim 8, Newman discloses if the host vehicle is unable to track the target vehicle, the estimating of the lane changing intention of the target vehicle is terminated (it stands to reason that if a target is untrackable, e.g. out of the trackable area, the target is no longer a target and intention determination is stopped due to irrelevancy).
Regarding claim 9, Newman discloses if the host vehicle is unable to track the target vehicle and a new target vehicle is detected and tracked, the risk adaptability model is reset to its initial state for the new target vehicle (see at least figure 11 which shows a flow diagram of the invention resetting to an initial state as necessary).
Regarding claim 10, Newman discloses if the host vehicle is able to track the target vehicle, the estimating of the lane changing intention of the target vehicle is repeatedly performed (see at least figure 11 and column 33 lines 10-31 which teaches accumulation of real-time data).
Regarding claim 11, Newman discloses the controlling of the host vehicle comprises an acceleration, a deceleration, or a steering, or any combination thereof (see at least figure 15).
Regarding claim 13, Newman discloses the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a front camera, a front radar, and a plurality of corner radars installed at the host vehicle (see at least column 22 line 7 to line 18).
Regarding claims 12 and 14-20, the claims comprise the same or similar limitations to that of rejected claims 1-11 above and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658