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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/30/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and is unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 11, The limitations of claim 1 do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant claim 11 recites “…outputting a predetermined control signal in response to determining that a safe lane change is possible in accordance with a predetermined position criterion in view of the objects taken into account” and “using the predetermined control signal to enable the safe lane change or to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible…” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the above limitations are directed to evaluating vehicles position and state information, comparing values, and determine if the lane is stable in order to perform a safe lane change and if the lane change is not stable it will prohibit lane change, which constitutes a mental process as enumerated in Section I of the 2018 patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG). The claimed “classifying” and “assigning” steps amount to analyzing information and making a decision based on the analysis, which can practically be performed in the human mind. The recitation of a “a motor vehicle”, “monitoring… sensor system” or “control signal” does not alter the fundamental nature of the claimed concept as these elements merely provide a technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 PEG regardless of whether a computer is used to perform the steps more efficiently. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea and in addition to outputting on display or outputting a signal and these are additional elements as they amount to necessary mere data gathering or a tool to receive the data being gathered to perform the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception.
The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 09/10/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to “…assigning each of the objects thereby detected to a specific one of the direction lanes on which the objects appear to be located; classifying an automatic direction lane assignment as stable in response to determining that no switch has occurred in object-specific direction lane assignments for the objects detected for at least a predetermined period of time and/or distance”, “classifying the automatic direction lane assignment as unstable as soon as a switch occurs in at least one of the object-specific direction lane assignments” and “taking into account only the objects assigned to at least one adjacent lane for supporting the lane change as long as the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable…” and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Also, the claims do not provide any control step to control the leading vehicle or the trailing vehicle to change lanes or to stay on the same lane following the leading vehicle and in addition to the claim limitations only provide a lane recommendation/selection which can be done mentally. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by controlling a navigation system and displaying route information. However, the additional elements merely amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The recited acts of monitoring a rear-facing region, outputting a predetermined control signal… constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data gathering and output, which do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the claims do not recite any limitation that controls the vehicle itself, alters vehicle operation, or change physical driving behavior. Instead, the claims merely determine if the vehicles ahead or in the back are stable in order to perform a lane change, leaving the final decision to the user. Such lane change recommendation can be performed mentally and does not amount a technological improvement.
Limitations “using the predetermined control signal to enable the safe lane change or to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible” that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claiming improved displaying results efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”). The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Examiner notes Applicant’s citing to Enfish, LLC v Microsoft corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved determination of the priority evacuation area and controlling the vehicle to perform the evacuation plan” The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.” Therefore, Enfish does not apply here. The Court gave examples, which included an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvement to the function of the computer itself; or some other meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Such as in Diamond v. Diehr, the claims were found statutory in which the Arrhenius equation is used to improve a process of controlling the operation of a mold in curing rubber parts. Examiner submits that under the current 35 U.S.C. 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: “We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.” The instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
With respect to Step 2B the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the processor at each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the previous claim 11 filed on 10/30/2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Miyata (US 2018/0354510 A1).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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: by means of as in SPEC (pages 13 and 39 PGPUB) in claims 11, 17-18 and 21.
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.
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 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites:
A method supports a driver of a motor vehicle during forward travel of the motor vehicle on a road having a plurality of direction lanes with regard to a possible lane change from a lane on which the vehicle is currently driving to at least one detected adjacent lane, which comprises the steps of:
monitoring a rear-facing region of all detectable direction lanes for objects by means of a rearward-directed environment sensor system of the motor vehicle;
assigning each of the objects thereby detected to a specific one of the direction lanes on which the objects appear to be located;
classifying an automatic direction lane assignment as stable in response to determining that no switch has occurred in object-specific direction lane assignments for the objects detected for at least a predetermined period of time and/or distance;
classifying the automatic direction lane assignment as unstable as soon as a switch occurs in at least one of the object-specific direction lane assignments;
taking into account only the objects assigned to at least one adjacent lane for supporting the lane change as long as the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable;
and outputting a predetermined control signal in response to determining that a safe lane change is possible in accordance with a predetermined position criterion in view of the objects taken into account
and using the predetermined control signal to enable the safe lane change or to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible.
Under Step 1 Claim 11 is a method claim same as claims 12-23.
Under Step 2A -Prong 1:
The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. These fall under mental process.
Claim 11 recites “a method supports a driver of a motor vehicle during forward travel of the motor vehicle on a road having a plurality of direction lanes with regard to a possible lane change from a lane on which the vehicle is currently driving to at least one detected adjacent lane, which comprises the steps of: monitoring a rear-facing region of all detectable direction lanes for objects by means of
Under Step 2A - Prong 2; the claims recite the additional elements of “a rearward-directed environment sensor system of the motor vehicle”, “classifying an automatic direction lane assignment”, “classifying the automatic direction lane assignment”, “outputting a predetermined control signal” and “using the predetermined control signal” steps is not more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 11-23 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-23 Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 1 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 11-23 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 11-13, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dobi et al (US 2021/0213951 A1) in further view of Miyata (US 2018/0354510 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dobi discloses a method supports a driver of a motor vehicle during forward travel of the motor vehicle on a road having a plurality of direction lanes with regard to a possible lane change from a lane on which the vehicle is currently driving to at least one detected adjacent lane, which comprises the steps of: (see Dobi figs 2-4 and paras “0004-0007” “It is an object of the present disclosure to specify a driving assistance system for a vehicle, a vehicle with the same and a driving assistance method for a vehicle which can avoid potential risk situations. In particular, it is an object of the present disclosure to carry out an automated driving function, such as a lane change, with minimal risk.”),
monitoring a rear-facing region of all detectable direction lanes for objects by means of a rearward-directed environment sensor system of the motor vehicle (see Dobi paras “0016” and “0043-0045” “The surroundings data, which are used in particular for determining the traffic density and optionally for detecting the at least one lane, can be recorded by an environment sensor system of the vehicle. The environment sensor system can, for example, comprise a LiDAR system, one or more radar systems and/or one or more multiple cameras. The captured surroundings data can be evaluated to determine the traffic density and optionally to determine the at least one lane. The traffic density can be used for a plausibility check of the at least one detected lane”),
assigning each of the objects thereby detected to a specific one of the direction lanes on which the objects appear to be located (see Dobi paras “0011”, “0038”, “0047” and “0056” “the third-party vehicles detected by the environment sensor system can be assigned two or more lanes, whereby the respective traffic density can be estimated. The determination unit can be set up to determine an individual confidence value for each of the traffic densities of the two or more lanes. For example, an individual traffic density with an assigned confidence value can be determined for the first-party lane of the vehicle and/or the at least one adjacent lane of the vehicle” and “a determination of a traffic density in a surrounding area of the vehicle based on surroundings data and in block 520 determination of a confidence value for the determined traffic density. In block 530, a comparison of the determined confidence value with a threshold value is carried out. If the determined confidence value is greater than or equal to the threshold value, a lane change is made in block 540. If the determined confidence value is less than the threshold value, no lane change is made in block 550”),
outputting a predetermined control signal in response to determining that a safe lane change is possible in accordance with a predetermined position criterion in view of the objects taken into account; and using the predetermined control signal to enable the safe lane change or to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible (see Dobi para “0033” “the driving assistance system 100 comprises a device for an automated driving function. The device for an automated driving function may comprise a lane change assistant and/or an emergency stop assistant. The device can be set up to perform the automated driving function when the determined confidence value is equal to or greater than a threshold value. The threshold value can be 50% or more, preferably 70% or more, and even more preferably 80% or more”).
But Dobi fails to explicitly teach classifying an automatic direction lane assignment as stable in response to determining that no switch has occurred in object-specific direction lane assignments for the objects detected for at least a predetermined period of time and/or distance classifying the automatic direction lane assignment as unstable as soon as a switch occurs in at least one of the object-specific direction lane assignments; taking into account only the objects assigned to at least one adjacent lane for supporting the lane change as long as the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable.
However, Miyata teaches classifying an automatic direction lane assignment as stable in response to determining that no switch has occurred in object-specific direction lane assignments for the objects detected for at least a predetermined period of time and/or distance (see Miyata paras “0014”, “0016” and “0214” “The target object specifying means for specifying, every time a predetermined time elapses, a determinative target object indicative of a three-dimensional object present around the own vehicle using the position-and-speed information”, “a “three-dimensional object 150 having a low relative speed with respect to at the own vehicle SV” which has been recognized for a certain period or longer as a determinative target object (target object for determination) may continue traveling at this low speed after entering the left blind spot area RdL or the right blind spot area Rdr of the radar sensors. In this case, the three-dimensional object 150 may stay for a long time in the left blind spot area RdL or the right blind spot area Rdr which the three-dimensional object 150 has entered”),
classifying the automatic direction lane assignment as unstable as soon as a switch occurs in at least one of the object-specific direction lane assignments (see Miyata paras “0019-0020”, “0025” and “0045” “in a case where the sensor target object corresponding to a previous determinative target object which is the determinative target object specified the predetermined time before is not detected (refer to a “No” determination at step 1410), determining that it is highly likely that an attention determinative target object has entered a blind spot area (RdL, Rdr) in which any of the radar sensors cannot detect any of the sensor target objects (refer to step 1427 and step 1429) to prohibit the control execution means from performing the lane changing support control (refer to a “No” determination at step 1820 and a “No” determination at step 1835)” and “the control prohibiting means is configured to determine that it is highly likely that the attention determinative target object has come out of the blind spot area (refer to a “Yes” determination at step 1615 and a “Yes” determination at step 1715) to permit the control execution means to perform the lane changing support control (refer to step 1620 and step 1720), when a blind spot area leaving determination condition is satisfied in a period for which the lane changing support control is prohibited”),
taking into account only the objects assigned to at least one adjacent lane for supporting the lane change as long as the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable (see Miyata paras “0338” “the CPU executes a lane changing support execution routine, every time the predetermined time Δt elapses. Therefore, when a predetermined timing arrives, the CPU starts processing from step 1800 shown in FIG. 18, and proceeds to step 1810 to determine whether or not a prerequisite condition of the lane changing support control is satisfied. The prerequisite condition of the lane changing support control is satisfied when all of the following two conditions are satisfied”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dobi for driving assistance system for a vehicle, vehicle having same and driving assistance method for a vehicle “to specify means for specifying, every time a predetermined time elapses, a determinative target object indicative of a three-dimensional object present around the own vehicle using the position-and-speed information” as taught by Miyata (paras. [0014-0020]- [0338]) in order to permit a safe lane change.
Regarding claim 12, Dobi discloses which further comprises using a radar device as the rearward-directed environment sensor system of the motor vehicle (see Dobi at least paras “0016” and “0032”).
Regarding claim 13, Dobi discloses which further comprises outputting the predetermined control signal only if at least one further predetermined condition is satisfied (see Dobi at least paras “0041-0043” “Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) can provide a variety of monitoring and advice functions to facilitate control of the car. With the help of one or more sensors, the surroundings of the vehicle can be monitored and evaluated… if a negative speed is detected for a car for example, then it is an opposite direction lane and a change to this lane can be ruled out. The system can therefore determine whether a lane change is safe and can, if necessary, bring the car into the correct position by adjusting the speed. In particular, an average speed can be determined for each lane and direction and the speed of the first-party vehicle can be adjusted based on this. By determining the traffic density on the individual lanes, safety during lane changes can be increased. In particular, vehicles can also be taken into account which are even further away, but possibly have a higher speed”).
Regarding claim 16, Dobi discloses which further comprises determining a local traffic density in an environment of the motor vehicle and the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as unstable if the local traffic density is greater than a predetermined threshold value (see Dobi at least paras “0008” and “0058” “For example, dangerous situations may occur in the event of a faulty calculation of the traffic density. Thus, a nearby approaching vehicle can obscure the view of vehicles driving further back” and “Thus, a closely approaching vehicle can obscure the view of vehicles driving further back. In addition, there may be vehicles that are not assigned to any lane or are assigned to the wrong lane, for example at the moment of a lane change. According to the present disclosure, a risk assessment can be carried out, for example for performing an automated driving function. If the automated driving function is a lane change and the confidence value of the calculated traffic density is low, for example, it can be decided that no lane change is carried out. In this way, potential hazardous situations can be avoided if the calculated traffic density is recognized as untrustworthy” regarding if there is a high traffic density, the probability of the view being obscured is greater).
Regarding claim 17, Dobi discloses wherein it is determined whether an interfering object from a predetermined list of possible interfering objects, which can interfere with a detection of the objects by means of the rearward-directed environment sensor system, is located in an environment of the motor vehicle and, if the interfering object is confirmed, an object-specific direction lane assignment is classified as unstable (see Dobi at least paras “0008-0009”, “0043” and “0058” “For example, dangerous situations may occur in the event of a faulty calculation of the traffic density. Thus, a nearby approaching vehicle can obscure the view of vehicles driving further back”).
Regarding claim 18, Dobi discloses which further comprises carrying out the method only after an object has been detected at least once by means of the rearward-directed environment sensor system during a current journey of the motor vehicle (see Dobi paras “0016” and “0043-0045” “The surroundings data, which are used in particular for determining the traffic density and optionally for detecting the at least one lane, can be recorded by an environment sensor system of the vehicle. The environment sensor system can, for example, comprise a LiDAR system, one or more radar systems and/or one or more multiple cameras. The captured surroundings data can be evaluated to determine the traffic density and optionally to determine the at least one lane. The traffic density can be used for a plausibility check of the at least one detected lane”).
Regarding claim 19, Dobi discloses which further comprises outputting the predetermined control signal only if at least one further predetermined condition is satisfied, namely the at least one further predetermined condition is that a current speed of the motor vehicle is greater than a predetermined minimum speed and/or that a guideline between the lane on which the vehicle is currently driving and an adjacent lane has been detected (see Dobi at least paras “0041-0043” “Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) can provide a variety of monitoring and advice functions to facilitate control of the car. With the help of one or more sensors, the surroundings of the vehicle can be monitored and evaluated… if a negative speed is detected for a car for example, then it is an opposite direction lane and a change to this lane can be ruled out. The system can therefore determine whether a lane change is safe and can, if necessary, bring the car into the correct position by adjusting the speed. In particular, an average speed can be determined for each lane and direction and the speed of the first-party vehicle can be adjusted based on this. By determining the traffic density on the individual lanes, safety during lane changes can be increased. In particular, vehicles can also be taken into account which are even further away, but possibly have a higher speed”).
Regarding claim 21, Dobi discloses which further comprises carrying out the method only after an object, having at least at a predetermined minimum distance from the motor vehicle, has been detected at least once by means of the rearward-directed environment sensor system during a current journey of the motor vehicle (see Dobi at least paras “0007” and “0041” “to determine a traffic density in a surrounding area of the vehicle, and a determination unit which is set up to determine a confidence value for the traffic density determined by the evaluation unit” regarding the traffic density is only determined if an object has been identified at least once during the current journey of the motor vehicle).
Regarding claim 22, Dobi discloses an assistance system for a motor vehicle, the assistance system comprising: an input interface for detecting environment data of an environment sensor system; a data processor for processing the environment data; an output interface for outputting a predetermined control signal; and the assistance system (see Dobi paras “0016” and “0043-0045” “The surroundings data, which are used in particular for determining the traffic density and optionally for detecting the at least one lane, can be recorded by an environment sensor system of the vehicle. The environment sensor system can, for example, comprise a LiDAR system, one or more radar systems and/or one or more multiple cameras. The captured surroundings data can be evaluated to determine the traffic density and optionally to determine the at least one lane. The traffic density can be used for a plausibility check of the at least one detected lane”).
Regarding claim 23, Dobi discloses a motor vehicle, comprising: an environment sensor system disposed for detecting a rear-facing environment region; and the assistance system (see Dobi paras “0016-0017” and “0043-0045” “The surroundings data, which are used in particular for determining the traffic density and optionally for detecting the at least one lane, can be recorded by an environment sensor system of the vehicle. The environment sensor system can, for example, comprise a LiDAR system, one or more radar systems and/or one or more multiple cameras. The captured surroundings data can be evaluated to determine the traffic density and optionally to determine the at least one lane. The traffic density can be used for a plausibility check of the at least one detected lane”).
Claims 14, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dobi et al (US 2021/0213951 A1) in further view of Miyata (US 2018/0354510 A1) in view of Schaper et al (US 2017/0232970 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dobi fails to explicitly teach wherein for the objects detected for which a respective speed of approach to the motor vehicle is determined and an output of the predetermined control signal, is prevented, if an approach speed of at least one detected object is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Schaper teaches wherein for the objects detected for which a respective speed of approach to the motor vehicle is determined and an output of the predetermined control signal, is prevented, if an approach speed of at least one detected object is greater than a predetermined threshold value (see Schaper paras “0008”, “0010-0014”, “0031”, “0033”, “0044” and “0047-0050” “the advantage of rating a lane as safe or unsafe without explicit detection of a certain vehicle. Thus collisions with vehicles that have a high difference in speed from the own vehicle ego can be avoided” and “In this case parameters of the other vehicle alter, such as distance, speed, etc., can be calculated by continuous measurement. This permits the recognition of a possible collision if the other vehicle alter should be faster than the own vehicle ego. This information can inform the driver of the own vehicle ego of the possible collision through a corresponding assistance system. In an autonomously driving vehicle, the information about the possible collision can trigger an automatic lane change from the common left-hand lane L to the right-hand lane R. Conversely, an intended lane change by an autonomous system to the lane L of the faster vehicle alter can naturally be prevented or aborted if a possible collision should prove likely”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dobi for driving assistance system for a vehicle, vehicle having same and driving assistance method for a vehicle “to detect other vehicles speed coming from behind of the own vehicle to determine whether or not to perform a lane change” as taught by Schaper (paras. [0008]- [0047-0050]) in order to avoid any collision or risky situations due to higher speed with other vehicles.
Regarding claim 20, Dobi fails to explicitly teach wherein for the objects detected for which a respective speed of approach to the motor vehicle is determined and an output of the predetermined control signal, which signals a possibility of a safe lane change or execution of the lane change, is prevented, if an approach speed of at least one detected object is greater than a predetermined threshold value, irrespective of which of the direction lanes a respective object is located on.
However, Schaper teaches wherein for the objects detected for which a respective speed of approach to the motor vehicle is determined and an output of the predetermined control signal, which signals a possibility of a safe lane change or execution of the lane change, is prevented, if an approach speed of at least one detected object is greater than a predetermined threshold value, irrespective of which of the direction lanes a respective object is located on (see Schaper paras “0008”, “0010-0014”, “0031”, “0033”, “0044” and “0047-0050” “the advantage of rating a lane as safe or unsafe without explicit detection of a certain vehicle. Thus collisions with vehicles that have a high difference in speed from the own vehicle ego can be avoided” and “In this case parameters of the other vehicle alter, such as distance, speed, etc., can be calculated by continuous measurement. This permits the recognition of a possible collision if the other vehicle alter should be faster than the own vehicle ego. This information can inform the driver of the own vehicle ego of the possible collision through a corresponding assistance system. In an autonomously driving vehicle, the information about the possible collision can trigger an automatic lane change from the common left-hand lane L to the right-hand lane R. Conversely, an intended lane change by an autonomous system to the lane L of the faster vehicle alter can naturally be prevented or aborted if a possible collision should prove likely”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dobi for driving assistance system for a vehicle, vehicle having same and driving assistance method for a vehicle “to detect other vehicles speed coming from behind of the own vehicle to determine whether or not to perform a lane change” as taught by Schaper (paras. [0008]- [0047-0050]) in order to avoid any collision or risky situations due to higher speed with other vehicles.
Regarding claim 24, Dobi fails to explicitly disclose which comprises showing an indicator on a display to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible.
However, Schaper teaches which comprises showing an indicator on a display to indicate to the driver of the motor vehicle that the safe lane change is possible (see Schaper para “0041” “An indication about the occupancy of the own lane and/or of another lane as well as the indication on a safe/unsafe lane change can be displayed to the driver of the own vehicle ego, for example, in a display in the dashboard in a rear-view mirror (inside as well as external mirror) and/or by means of a projection onto the rear windscreen and/or the front windscreen of the vehicle by suitable symbols. Alternatively or in addition, the indication can also be output acoustically or haptically”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dobi for driving assistance system for a vehicle, vehicle having same and driving assistance method for a vehicle “to detect other vehicles speed coming from behind of the own vehicle to determine whether or not to perform a lane change” as taught by Schaper (paras. [0008]- [0047-0050]) in order to avoid any collision or risky situations due to higher speed with other vehicles.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dobi et al (US 2021/0213951 A1) in further view of Miyata (US 2018/0354510 A1) in view of Oh et al (US 2019/0315374 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dobi fails to explicitly teach which further comprises determining a course of the road and the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable only if a local curviness of the road in a section on which the motor vehicle is driving is less than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Oh teaches which further comprises determining a course of the road and the automatic direction lane assignment is classified as stable only if a local curviness of the road in a section on which the motor vehicle is driving is less than a predetermined threshold value (see Schaper paras “0020”, “0073” and “0084” “The processor 140 may determine that the lane changeable condition is met when a lane exists and the vehicle travels on a road having a curvature equal to or less than a lane change limiting curvature, when the vehicle travels at a lane changeable speed, when a lateral control is operated, and when it is not a road on which a lane change is impossible within a specified distance in front of the vehicle or at a current vehicle location”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dobi for driving assistance system for a vehicle, vehicle having same and driving assistance method for a vehicle “to determine a road having a curvature equal to or less than a lane change limiting curvature” as taught by Oh (paras. [0020]- [0073]) in order to accurately inform the driver of the change in a state of the lane change function, thereby allowing the driver to response safely to it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664