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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 17-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-27 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 5-16, and 21-27 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
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”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor system” in claims 1 and 11, “road condition assessment module” in claims 1 and 11, “buffer evaluation module” in claims 1, 11, and 16, and “predictive logic module” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “sensor system” in claims 1 and 11, “road condition assessment module” in claims 1 and 11, “buffer evaluation module” in claims 1, 11, and 16, and “predictive logic module” in claim 6 all use a generic placeholder “system” or “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Sensor system: [0033] - The sensor system 120 includes various sensor subsystems 122, 122a-122b configured to gather sensor data 123, 123a-123b relating to characteristics of the environment 10 and/or a status of the host vehicle 100.
Road condition assessment module: [0037, 0040] - For instance, the ADAS 200 can include a road condition assessment module 220, a buffer evaluation module 240, and a predictive logic module 260… With reference to FIG. 2, the road condition assessment module 220 can be configured to evaluate road conditions (i.e., traffic conditions) and determine whether the road conditions are consistent (i.e., steady and smooth travel) or highly variable (i.e., stop-and-go). In other words, the road condition assessment module 220 can be configured to consider the road conditions surrounding the host vehicle 100, behavior of the lead vehicle 102, measures of mean velocity and acceleration profiles, variability in traffic conditions, period, and frequency of change in conditions. According to at least one aspect, the road condition assessment module 220 can calculate an adjusted time gap 222 based on host vehicle velocity 127, a first target follow distance time (i.e., an initial target follow distance time) 128, and a rate of change 129 of the host vehicle. In one example, the adjusted time gap 222 can be determined by using a look up table 221 with the host vehicle velocity 127, the first target follow distance time 128, and the rate of change 129.
Buffer evaluation module: [0037, 0041] - For instance, the ADAS 200 can include a road condition assessment module 220, a buffer evaluation module 240, and a predictive logic module 260… The buffer evaluation module 240 can be configured to determine a second target follow distance time (i.e., an adjusted target follow distance time) 242. In some instances, the second target follow distance time will increase the follow gap 210 between the host vehicle 100 and the lead vehicle 102 and in other instances, will decrease the follow gap 210 between the host vehicle 100 and the lead vehicle 102. According to at least one aspect, the second target follow distance time 242 can be determined by summing the adjusted time gap 222, a driver selected gap 244, and a minimum allowable follow gap 246.
Predictive logic module: [0037, 0042] - For instance, the ADAS 200 can include a road condition assessment module 220, a buffer evaluation module 240, and a predictive logic module 260… Based on the observed behavior of the surrounding road conditions and behavior of the lead vehicle 102, the predictive logic module 260 can receive the second target follow distance time 242 and adjust or modify it accordingly. For instance, a target oscillatory gain 264 can be applied to the second target follow distance time 242 to determine a third or final target follow distance time 262. The third target follow distance time 262 is predictive in nature and can help prevent sudden motion (i.e., jerk) during instances of acceleration and deceleration.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 16, 21, and 24-27 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 16 recites “one or more vehicle or traffic thresholds… one or more thresholds… the thresholds” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if these are referring to the same or different thresholds. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to be referring to either the same or different one or more thresholds in each instance.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the second target follow distance time is determined by summing the adjusted time gap, the first follow gap, and the minimum allowable gap” and it is unclear to the examiner what is being conveyed by this limitation. How can a time be determined by adding time and distance? The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to wherein the second target follow distance time is determined based at least in part on the adjusted time gap, the first follow gap, and the minimum allowable gap.
Claim 26 recites “a threshold” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the same threshold as in claim 16. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to be referring to either the same or different one or more thresholds in each instance.
Claim 27 recites “one or more thresholds” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the same threshold as in claim 16. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly to be referring to either the same or different one or more thresholds in each instance.
Claims 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 16 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2020/0324766 A1) in view of Rajvanshi (DE 10 2022 109 473 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon) and Ito (US 2017/0080940 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a computer-implemented method that, when executed by data processing hardware, causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (see at least [0040-0041]) comprising: gathering sensor data from a sensor system of a host vehicle (see at least [0018, 0044-0045] – sensors); evaluating the sensor data (see at least [0018, 0044-0045, 0050-0051] – assessing); receiving a first follow gap selected by a driver (see at least [0049] – selectable preset distance between the subject vehicle 10 and a lead vehicle); determining, via a road condition assessment module, surrounding road conditions (see at least [0018, 0050] – presence, speed, and other parameters of the lead vehicle), behavior of a lead vehicle (see at least [0018, 0050] – road conditions such as road grade… traffic flow), a host vehicle velocity, a first target follow distance time, and a rate of change of the host vehicle (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade.); generating, via the road condition assessment module, an adjusted time gap based on the host vehicle velocity, the first target follow distance time, and the rate of change of the host vehicle (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade… Avoiding reducing the following gap to be less than the desired minimum following gap when following a lead vehicle.); determining a traffic condition status indicating whether traffic surrounding the host vehicle is consistent or variable (see at least [0049] – traffic density); calculating, via a buffer evaluation module, a second follow gap based on the surrounding road conditions, the behavior of the lead vehicle, the adjusted time gap, the first follow gap, and a minimum allowable gap (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade.); adjusting an acceleration profile of the host vehicle using the second follow gap while maintaining at least the first follow gap between the host vehicle and the lead vehicle (see at least [0051, 0053] - Upon detecting presence of a lead vehicle, the ACC control routine gathers information, including determining a speed of the lead vehicle and other parameters in order to update and possibly adjust the initial control parameters associated with the ACC . The initial control parameters associated with the ACC for the subject vehicle may be adjusted based upon parameters related to the speed of the lead vehicle, the traffic conditions, and the road conditions, and the ACC is controlled to operate the subject vehicle based upon the adjusted control parameters. This includes selecting the desired following gap range, including selecting the desired minimum following gap and the desired maximum following gap, wherein the desired minimum following gap and the desired maximum following gap are selected based upon operating conditions, traffic conditions, etc., as described herein. Thus, the subject vehicle can operate with the following gap being flexible within the desired following gap range… Adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range.).
Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose activating a buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates variable traffic; disabling the buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates consistent traffic; monitoring behavior of road actors in one or more adjacent lanes; and adjusting the second follow gap based on the behavior of the road actors in the one or more adjacent lanes.
Rajvanshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a traffic condition status indicating whether traffic surrounding the host vehicle is consistent or variable (see at least [0023] – traffic density); activating a buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates variable traffic (see at least [0016-0017, 0023, 0056] – keep the host vehicle’s assistance feature in an activated state in high traffic density… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning); disabling the buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates consistent traffic (see at least [0016-0017, 0023, 0056] – deactivate the host vehicle’s assistance feature when traffic density is low… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Rajvanshi into the invention of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve vehicle operation by only activating assistance features when they are suitable or desirable based on the traffic density (Rajvanshi – [0023]).
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: monitoring behavior of road actors in one or more adjacent lanes; and adjusting the second follow gap based on the behavior of the road actors in the one or more adjacent lanes (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] – When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle. Consequently, when the predicted cut-in vehicle actually cuts in, the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the predicted cut-in vehicle becomes appropriate in a short time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ito into the invention of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of maintaining a safe inter-vehicle distance when a vehicle is predicted to cut in between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle (Ito – [0010]). Maintaining this safe distance will prevent potential collisions if the vehicle does cut-in and reduces aggressive driving behaviors.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao discloses wherein the buffer evaluation module is configured to provide a second target follow distance time (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade.).
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Zhao discloses wherein the second target follow distance time is determined by summing the adjusted time gap, the first follow gap, and the minimum allowable gap (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade.).
Regarding claim 22, Zhao discloses wherein the road condition assessment module determines the adjusted time gap by the host vehicle velocity, the first target follow distance time, and the rate of change of the host vehicle (see at least [0053, 0055, 0061] - The step of controlling, via the ACC 40, operation of the subject vehicle 10 based upon the desired following gap range includes converting the predicted operation of the lead vehicle into a time-distance domain and executing a control theory that includes adjusting the desired vehicle speed for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the speed of the lead vehicle and the predicted operation of the lead vehicle in the time-distance domain so as not to fall outside the desired following gap range… Detecting an approaching grade in the travel path, and adjusting the control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed based upon the approaching grade. This may further include adjusting the vehicle control parameters to control the desired vehicle speed and the desired following gap for the subject vehicle 10 based upon the approaching grade.).
Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose using a lookup table indexed by the host vehicle velocity, the first target follow distance time, and the rate of change of the host vehicle.
However, Zhao does disclose the use of look-up tables (see at least [0041] – look-up tables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the use of a look-up table indexed with the parameters that Zhao already uses for determining the adjusted time gap. The use of look-up tables is known to improve speed of data retrieval and processing which improves processing performance. Look-up tables are also widely used and well-known, therefore implementing a look-up table would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein activating the buffer evaluation module further requires that a number of surrounding road actors exceeds a threshold.
Rajvanshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein activating the buffer evaluation module further requires that a number of surrounding road actors exceeds a threshold (see at least [0016-0017, 0023, 0056] – keep the host vehicle’s assistance feature in an activated state in high traffic density… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning).
The motivation to combine Zhao and Rajvanshi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Rajvanshi, Ito, and Kubota (JP 2003-260956 A, a machine translation is attached and being relied upon).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao discloses wherein calculating the second follow gap further comprises evaluating the second target follow distance time with a predictive logic module (see at least [0051-0053] – predictive speed of the lead vehicle within a time horizon… an expected vehicle following gap).
Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose evaluating the second target follow distance time and an oscillatory gain with a predictive logic module.
Kubota, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: evaluating the second target follow distance time and an oscillatory gain with a predictive logic module (see at least [0005, 0024, 0049, 0069] – calculate the natural frequency and damping coefficient that constitute the feedforward gain… control the target inter-vehicle distance based on the feedforward gain that uses a reference model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kubota into the invention of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of smoothly changing the inter-vehicle distance without causing any discomfort to the driver (Kubota - [0069]).
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Rajvanshi, Ito, and Arai (US 2010/0268432 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses wherein the second follow gap is calculated according to the surrounding road conditions and behavior of the lead vehicle (see at least [0051, 0053]).
Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose continuously calculated.
Arai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: continuously calculated (see at least [0095, 0106-0107] – calculate inter-vehicle distance… continuously changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Arai into the invention of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that the limit inter-vehicle distance continuously changes with a gradient and taking into account the changes in gradient reduce the uneasy feeling that the driver may experience when travelling downhill and needing to stop (Arai – [0007, 0095]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second follow gap is reduced when one or more road actors cut in between the lead vehicle and the host vehicle.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second follow gap is reduced when one or more road actors cut in between the lead vehicle and the host vehicle (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] –When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle. Consequently, when the predicted cut-in vehicle actually cuts in, the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the predicted cut-in vehicle becomes appropriate in a short time. Examiner note: see [0052] of the specification, the second follow gap is used to absorb sudden changes in the follow gap distance when nearby road actor 104 cuts in, and so the second follow gap being reduced is a result of the nearby road actor cutting in).
The motivation to combine Zhao and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12-13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 7-8, and it has been determined that claims 12-13 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 7-8; therefore, claims 12-13 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 7-8.
Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Rajvanshi, Ito, Arai, and Yamada (US 2024/0217514 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second follow gap is increased when road conditions are highly variable.
Yamada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second follow gap is increased when road conditions are highly variable (see at least [0014, 0036] – increase the inter-vehicle distance before the deceleration of the vehicle 10 occurs due to the influence of traffic disturbance… the traffic disturbance includes at least one of a traffic jam, a road obstacle, a road construction, an accident, a road surface freezing, rainfall, snow accumulation, and a thick fog).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yamada into the invention of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve safety when a deceleration occurs due to a traffic disturbance (Yamada – [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second follow gap is maintained when road conditions are consistent.
Yamada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the second follow gap is maintained when road conditions are consistent (see at least [0014, 0036] – increase the inter-vehicle distance before the deceleration of the vehicle 10 occurs due to the influence of traffic disturbance… the traffic disturbance includes at least one of a traffic jam, a road obstacle, a road construction, an accident, a road surface freezing, rainfall, snow accumulation, and a thick fog, i.e., otherwise the inter-vehicle distance is not increased).
The motivation to combine Zhao and Yamada is the same as in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claims 14-15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 9-10, and it has been determined that claims 14-15 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 9-10; therefore, claims 14-15 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 9-10.
Claims 16 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Rajvanshi and Ito.
Regarding claim 16, Yamada discloses a computer-implemented method that, when executed by data processing hardware, causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (see at least [0019]) comprising: determining a traffic condition status (see at least [0028] – acquire traffic information); determining with a buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates consistent traffic surrounding a host vehicle (see at least [0043, 0045] – When the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance 51 is not located on the route of the vehicle 10 in S3 (S3: No), the process described below is not executed… An appropriate inter-vehicle distance is maintained.); determining with the buffer management system when the traffic condition status indicates variable traffic surrounding the host vehicle, the buffer evaluation module being configured to dynamically absorb and/or reestablish buffers based on one or more vehicle or traffic thresholds (see at least [0014, 0036, 0043, 0045] - the vehicle control device 12 increases the inter-vehicle distance before the deceleration of the vehicle 10 occurs due to the influence of the traffic disturbance generated in front of the traveling route… When the occurrence position X of the traffic disturbance 51 is on the route of the vehicle 10 in S3 (S3: Yes)… the reference inter-vehicle distance is set to a distance longer than a distance that is set as an appropriate inter-vehicle distance when the normal vehicle is traveling.); and either generating (i) a first buffer or (ii) a second buffer comprising a preferred follow distance time and a non-cut-in buffer time if the road actor cut-ins are not present (see at least [0014] – inter-vehicle distance or increase the inter-vehicle distance).
Yamada does not appear to explicitly disclose disabling a buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates consistent traffic surrounding a host vehicle; activating the buffer management system when the traffic condition status indicates variable traffic surrounding the host vehicle; determining whether road actor cut-ins are present between the host vehicle and a lead vehicle; and either generating (i) a first buffer comprising a preferred follow distance time and cut-in buffer time if the road actor cut-ins are present or (ii) a second buffer comprising a preferred follow distance time and a non-cut-in buffer time if the road actor cut-ins are not present, the cut-in buffer time or non-cut-in buffer time is absorbed if one or more thresholds are met and reestablished if the thresholds are not met.
Rajvanshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: disabling a buffer evaluation module when the traffic condition status indicates consistent traffic surrounding a host vehicle (see at least [0016-0017, 0056] – deactivate the host vehicle’s assistance feature when traffic density is low… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning); activating the buffer management system when the traffic condition status indicates variable traffic surrounding the host vehicle (see at least [0016-0017, 0056] – keep the host vehicle’s assistance feature in an activated state in high traffic density… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Rajvanshi into the invention of Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve vehicle operation by only activating assistance features when they are suitable or desirable based on the traffic density (Rajvanshi – [0023]).
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining whether road actor cut-ins are present between the host vehicle and a lead vehicle; and either generating (i) a first buffer comprising a preferred follow distance time and cut-in buffer time if the road actor cut-ins are present or (ii) a second buffer comprising a preferred follow distance time and a non-cut-in buffer time if the road actor cut-ins are not present (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] –When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance (i.e., which adds a cut-in buffer time to the preferred follow distance) between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle. Consequently, when the predicted cut-in vehicle actually cuts in, the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the predicted cut-in vehicle becomes appropriate in a short time.), the cut-in buffer time or non-cut-in buffer time is absorbed if one or more thresholds are met and reestablished if the thresholds are not met (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] –When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance (i.e., which adds a cut-in buffer time to the preferred follow distance) between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle. Consequently, when the predicted cut-in vehicle actually cuts in, the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the predicted cut-in vehicle becomes appropriate in a short time. (i.e., when the cut-in vehicle cuts in, the cut-in buffer time is absorbed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ito into the invention of Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of maintaining a safe inter-vehicle distance when a vehicle is predicted to cut in between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle (Ito – [0010]). Maintaining this safe distance will prevent potential collisions if the vehicle does cut-in and reduces aggressive driving behaviors.
Regarding claim 25, Yamada discloses wherein activating the buffer evaluation module further requires that a number of surrounding road actors is greater than a threshold (see at least [0043, 0045] – the traffic disturbance 51).
Rajvanshi, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein activating the buffer evaluation module further requires that a number of surrounding road actors is greater than a threshold (see at least [0016-0017, 0056] – keep the host vehicle’s assistance feature in an activated state in high traffic density… assistance features that are desirable in high traffic such as forward collision warning).
The motivation to combine Yamada and Rajvanshi is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 26, Yamada does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether road actor cut-ins are present between the host vehicle and the lead vehicle comprises detecting that at least one of: (i) a number of road actor cut-ins exceeds a threshold and (ii) an amount of time since a last road actor cut-in is less than a threshold, based on sensor data from one or more of a camera and a radar.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein determining whether road actor cut-ins are present between the host vehicle and the lead vehicle comprises detecting that at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following): (i) a number of road actor cut-ins exceeds a threshold (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] –When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance (i.e., which adds a cut-in buffer time to the preferred follow distance) between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle.) and (ii) an amount of time since a last road actor cut-in is less than a threshold, based on sensor data from one or more of a camera and a radar.
The motivation to combine Yamada and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 27, Yamada does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein absorbing or reestablishing the cut-in buffer time or the non-cut-in buffer time is performed based on one or more thresholds comprising at least one of: (a) a velocity of the host vehicle with respect to the lead vehicle relative to a buffer threshold, (b) an absolute velocity of the lead vehicle with respect to a road relative to a buffer threshold, (c) an acceleration of the lead vehicle with respect to the host vehicle relative to a buffer threshold, and (d) a velocity of the host vehicle with respect to the road relative to a buffer threshold.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein absorbing or reestablishing the cut-in buffer time or the non-cut-in buffer time is performed based on one or more thresholds comprising at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following): (a) a velocity of the host vehicle with respect to the lead vehicle relative to a buffer threshold (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] – When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance (i.e., which adds a cut-in buffer time to the preferred follow distance) between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle.), (b) an absolute velocity of the lead vehicle with respect to a road relative to a buffer threshold, (c) an acceleration of the lead vehicle with respect to the host vehicle relative to a buffer threshold, and (d) a velocity of the host vehicle with respect to the road relative to a buffer threshold (see at least Figs. 6A-6B, [0010, 0084-0086, 0102] – When the predicted cut-in vehicle is detected, the own vehicle decelerates so as to increase the inter-vehicle distance (i.e., which adds a cut-in buffer time to the preferred follow distance) between the own vehicle and the objective-forward-vehicle.).
The motivation to combine Yamada and Ito is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Rajvanshi, Ito, and Karri (US 2022/0391712 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Yamada discloses wherein determining the traffic condition status comprises evaluating variability in traffic conditions, to classify the traffic condition status as consistent or variable (see at least [0028, 0032, 0036]).
Yamada does not appear to explicitly wherein determining the traffic condition status comprises evaluating mean velocity and acceleration profiles of surrounding traffic, and at least one of a period and a frequency of change in surrounding traffic to classify the traffic condition status as consistent or variable.
Rajvanshi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein determining the traffic condition status comprises evaluating mean velocity profiles of surrounding traffic to classify the traffic condition status as consistent or variable (see at least [0017-0018, 0061, 0070-0071]).
The motivation to combine Yamada and Rajvanshi is the same as in the rejection of claim 16 above.
Karri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein determining the traffic condition status comprises evaluating mean velocity and acceleration profiles of surrounding traffic, and at least one of a period and a frequency of change in surrounding traffic to classify the traffic condition status as consistent or variable (see at least [0070] – average traffic speed of vehicles, average acceleration/deceleration rates of vehicles, changes in traffic conditions… rates of change in traffic volume, rates of change in traffic congestion, rates of change in traffic speed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Karri into the invention of Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that Karri demonstrates that various types of parameters can be used as a measure of vehicle traffic on roadways (Karri – [0070]). Integrating different parameters into the evaluation of traffic, such as those taught by Karri, would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are presented above which are necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12 filed 11/5/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rajvanshi (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights