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 Objections
Claim 9 l 2 objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error is present wherein the claim should read “a longitudinal guidance module that performs a longitudinal guidance maneuver.” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because Figure 2 shows only generic flow charts with no information presented in each element of the chart. Applicants' invention is unclear from the drawings because a number of methods may fit the same flow diagram. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (CRM) (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) embodied as claimed “memory” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01 When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is acceptable to amend the claims to exclude the signal embodiment by adding non-transitory to modify the computer readable media. Non-transitory is not a requirement, but simply one option. Applicant can choose other ways to amend the claim in accordance with the original disclosure. Dependent claims rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1,9 ll 12-13 recites “the second safety distance is different from the first safety distance by a predetermined limit amount.” The plain meaning of this clause is a mathematical difference. However, the instant original specification supports D2 equal to a predetermined value, not a subtraction. D2 is not calculated as a difference with a predetermined amount, i.e. D2 is not D2 = D1 – amount, rather D2 is D2 = amount. See instant USPGPub para 60. The claimed subject matter is not supported. Claim 5 is worded similarly and suffers from the same issue as claim 1. For the purposes of examining the recitation of claim 1,9 will be taken as “the second safety distance is a predetermined amount, the second safety distance is different from the first safety distance.” Claim 5 will be taken as “the second safety distance is less than the first safety distance.”
Dependent claims rejected due to dependency from rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qian US 2023/0037367.
In Re 1-2,5-10, Qian teaches
1. A method for performing a lane change maneuver (abstract) with a motor vehicle (1011 fig 10a) in an at least partially automated manner (title), the method comprising:
ascertaining a first safety distance (d1 1043 S401 fig 9) of the motor vehicle in relation to a target object (103, figs 10a-10b) relevant to the lane change maneuver based on transverse guidance data of a transverse guidance module (1431 fig 13) of the motor vehicle that performs the lane change maneuver;
ascertaining (S402) an activation state of a longitudinal guidance module (1432 fig 13) of the motor vehicle, wherein the activation state indicates that the longitudinal guidance module is activated to perform a longitudinal guidance maneuver of the motor vehicle in an at least partially automated manner;
ascertaining at least one control parameter indicating that the longitudinal guidance module considers (step after S402 yes, also labeled as S402 “acquire a lane changing preparation region in a current driving lane) the target object for the longitudinal guidance maneuver;
only if the activation state and the control parameter are present (yes and or succeed fig 9), ascertaining a second safety distance of the motor vehicle in relation to the target object (S406 safety check), wherein the second safety distance is different from the first safety distance by a predetermined limit amount (see 35 USC 112a rejection above); and
performing the lane change maneuver by way of the transverse guidance module in compliance with the second safety distance to the target object (S406 perform)(at least all figs and paras).
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ascertaining a lane change status of the transverse guidance module, wherein the lane change status indicates that performing the lane change maneuver in compliance with the first safety distance to the target object has been initiated by way of the transverse guidance module within a preceding, predetermined time interval (S403 succeed or S402 yes), and wherein the second safety distance is additionally only ascertained if the lane change status is present (S404).
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second safety distance is reduced (emergency braking distance is the shortest safe following distance, more conservative distances are used for initial assessment) by the predetermined limit amount compared to the first safety distance (D2E<D2J, note first and second thresholds paras 81-86).
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the ascertaining the second safety distance includes considering an emergency braking distance to the target object for performing the longitudinal guidance maneuver, and wherein the emergency braking distance (emergency braking para 121) indicates a distance to the target object that is at least required for an emergency braking module to prevent a collision with the target object by way of an emergency braking maneuver.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the target object is a foreign vehicle (103) on a target lane (Lane A) , onto which the motor vehicle is to be steered by performing the lane change maneuver (ego vehicle 101 from lane b to lane a fig 10).
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the first safety distance and the second safety distance is set based on a vehicle speed of the motor vehicle and/or of the target object (formulas 1 and 2, distance a function of velocity of both ego vehicle and target vehicle).
9. A motor vehicle with a transverse guidance module that performs a lane change maneuver and a longitudinal guidance module a longitudinal guidance maneuver, the motor vehicle comprising: a processor (computer para 55 fig 14); and a memory (computer para 55) storing program code (figs 3-5,7-9) that, when executed by the processor, causes the motor vehicle to: ascertain a first safety distance of the motor vehicle in relation to a target object relevant to the lane change maneuver based on transverse guidance data of the transverse guidance module; ascertain an activation state of the longitudinal guidance module of the motor vehicle, wherein the activation state indicates that the longitudinal guidance module is activated to perform the longitudinal guidance maneuver in at least a partially automated manner; ascertain at least one control parameter indicating that the longitudinal guidance module considers the target object for the longitudinal guidance maneuver; only if the activation state and the control parameter are present, ascertain a second safety distance of the motor vehicle in relation to the target object, wherein the second safety distance is different from the first safety distance by a predetermined limit amount; and perform the lane change maneuver by way of the transverse guidance module in compliance with the second safety distance to the target object (see in re 1 above over Qian).
10. The motor vehicle according to claim 9, further comprising: a camera system and a radar system, wherein the camera system includes the transverse guidance module and the radar system includes the longitudinal guidance module (para 55).
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 (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 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 factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian US 2023/0037367in view of Fukuda et al US 2015/0344033.
In Re 3, Qian does not teach however Fukuda teaches ascertaining a probability of entry of the target object into the second safety distance, wherein the lane change maneuver is performed in compliance with the second safety distance only if the probability of entry falls below a preset limit value (para 4). Fukuda further teaches risk mitigation paras 73-74. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Fukuda’s probability safety to Qian’s vehicle to reduce risk.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian US 2023/0037367in view of Taniguchi US 11,780,474.
IN Re 4, Qian teaches the autonomous lane change as described above.
Qian does not teach however Taniguchi teaches ascertaining an override state of the longitudinal guidance module indicating that a passenger of the motor vehicle at least partially overrides the performing of the longitudinal guidance maneuver by way of the longitudinal guidance module by a driving intervention; and preventing the performing the lane change maneuver in compliance with the second safety distance if the override state is present (col 4 ll 25-45). Taniguchi further teaches driver avoiding obstacles (col 4 ll 25-45). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Taniguchi’s override to Qian’s vehicle to avoid obstacles that the robot car did not detect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747