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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/719,901 , with an effective filing date of 6/14/2024. Claims 17-19 have been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 1-10 were previously canceled by the Applicant prior to examination. Claims 11-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification and Claim Objection sections in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, and subsequently withdraws objections to said sections. However, a new objection to the Applicant’s disclosure is hereby made as detailed below.
Regarding the rejections of claims 17-19 under 35 USC § 112(b), the Applicant has elected to cancel claims 17-19 which renders those rejections moot.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 11-19 as being anticipated by Posch (US Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0221575 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Posch], the Applicant has elected to amend independent claim 11 and cancel claims 17-19. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102(a)(1) is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Hasberg et al. (US Pat. No. 10,656,641 B1) [hereinafter referred to as Hasberg] has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding independent claim 11, the Applicant argues, see pg.8, that Posch does not disclose the limitation wherein the predetermined condition is different from the predetermined initial condition. Posch does discloses detecting a new object [0051] and correcting the driver assistance system [0052], which correspond to the claimed initial and predetermined conditions, respectively, though Posch does not explicitly recite a "second" condition. However, Hasberg teaches switching operating states based on a first or second condition in col 1 ln 58-64, utilizing sensors for detecting traffic in col 5 ln 47-48, and implementing ACC for following vehicles col 1 ln 23-27. This is construed as a second predetermined condition which is different from the first, and examples of different predetermined initial conditions and predetermined conditions based on the description by the Applicant in [0034] of their disclosure. Therefore, this argument is moot.
Furthermore, Applicant argues, see pg. 9, that Posch does not identify a start time of the predetermined driving situation nor detecting a potential occurrence. However, in [0051] the at least one driving situation characteristic function can adopt as a characteristic at least one driving situation from the group of driving situations, construed as potential driving situations following to vehicle stop, following from start, following in stop-and-go traffic, approaching a slower object, object detection of a new object, traffic jam, stop-and-go traffic, and parking forward or in reverse, which are all examples that may necessarily a start time of a specific interval and an end time to an interval. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1 contains phraseology that may be implied (i.e., “The invention relates to…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posch et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0221575 A1), hereinafter referred to as Posch, in view of Hasberg et al. (US Pat. No. 10,656,641 B1), hereinafter referred to as Hasberg.
Regarding claim 11, Posch discloses:
A method for detecting an occurrence of a predetermined driving situation ([0018] method stored computer program utilizing a computer-readable medium [0019] sentence (s.) 1, at least one environmental parameter function that is suitable for characterizing the surroundings of the vehicle, the calculation or determination of at least one driving situation characteristic function that characterizes a driving situation of the vehicle which is construed by the Examiner as necessarily detecting an occurrence of a predetermined driving situation) and for identifying a start time and an end time of the predetermined driving situation for a journey ([0049] at least one driving situation characteristic function changes during a time interval, which is construed by the Examiner as identifying a start time and an end time for a driving situation, and [0051] where the at least one driving situation characteristic function can adopt as a characteristic at least one driving situation from the group of driving situations, construed as potential driving situations following to vehicle stop, following from start, following in stop-and-go traffic, approaching a slower object, object detection of a new object, traffic jam, stop-and-go traffic, and parking forward or in reverse, which are all examples that may necessarily a start time of a specific interval and an end time to an interval) using an activated driver assistance system for longitudinal control of an ego vehicle ([0004] systems for automated or autonomous driving that independently govern longitudinal velocity and maintain the vehicle in the lane by means of steering interventions and [0135] ADAS system comprising a controller (e.g., processor) to execute longitudinal control over the vehicle), the method comprising:
detecting a potential occurrence of the predetermined driving situation ([0005] disclosure of ultrasonic sensors and [0007] disclosure of camera and radar sensors, both of which are construed as necessarily detecting a potential occurrence) and identifying the start time when a predetermined initial condition is satisfied (see [0049] as detailed above regarding utilizing time intervals, [0037] where criteria that are used to determine the control intervention that depends on the respective driving situation which is construed as an initial condition that would necessarily need to be satisfied, and [0107] discloses a situation where a vehicle being followed brakes and the ADAS system initiates based on when a predefined distance threshold is exceeded);
detecting an occurrence of the predetermined driving situation when the potential occurrence of the predetermined driving situation has been detected and a predetermined condition is satisfied ([0005] disclosure of ultrasonic sensors, [0007] disclosure of camera and radar sensors, both of which are construed as necessarily detecting a potential occurrence, [0020] optimized driver assistance system that has at least one environmental sensor for detecting, particularly for measuring, an environmental parameter that characterizes the surroundings of the vehicle, and at least one vehicle sensor for detecting, particularly for measuring, a vehicle parameter that characterizes an operating state of a vehicle, and [0037] where criteria that are used to determine the control intervention that depends on the respective driving situation, all of which is construed by the Examiner as necessarily detecting and confirming an occurrence through several means and verifying intervention is necessary utilizing an initial condition that would necessarily need to be satisfied); and
detecting an end of the occurrence of the predetermined driving situation (see [0005], [0007], and [0020] as described above) and identifying the end time when the occurrence of the predetermined driving situation has been detected and a predetermined end condition is satisfied (see [0049] as detailed above regarding utilizing time intervals and [0037] where criteria that are used to determine the control intervention that depends on the respective driving situation which is construed as an initial condition that would necessarily need to be satisfied).
Although Posch discloses the use of predetermined conditions and driving situations as discussed above, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the predetermined condition is different from the predetermined initial condition.
However, Hasberg teaches in column (col) 1 lines (ln) 58-64 where a switch from one operating state to another operating state is made from a predetermined first condition, which is construed as a predetermined initial condition, or from a predetermined second condition based on the scenario. Furthermore, Hasberg teaches in col 5 ln 47-48 a sensor for detecting preceding traffic which is construed as a predetermined initial condition as described by the Applicant in [0034] of their disclosure as a potential approach of a vehicle as a recording of a new object ahead of the vehicle. The Applicant further describes in [0034] the beginning of control by the adaptive cruise control (ACC) as a predetermined condition which is taught in col 1 ln 23-27 where ACC is utilized to permit a vehicle to drive behind a preceding vehicle with adaptive speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the situational time interval disclosure of Posch, by incorporating the redundant conditioning teachings of Hasberg, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improving safety considerations for the adaptive cruise control system and the driver.
Regarding claim 12, Posch discloses:
The method according to claim 11, wherein the end condition being satisfied when a predetermined time period has elapsed since identification of the start time ([0136] where the end condition is satisfied when a time period has elapsed (i.e., if vehicle to be followed has acceleration below a threshold for 4 seconds, the ego vehicle assumes constant speed and the driving situation is assumed to have ended)).
Regarding claim 13, Posch discloses:
The method according to claim11, wherein the method is terminated when during the potential occurrence of the predetermined driving situation, an occurrence of a further predetermined driving situation is detected ( [0008] through the combination of radar and camera, even merging vehicles, vehicles traveling ahead and vehicles traveling ahead of them in the vehicle's own lane and in neighboring lanes can be detected and reacted to in good time and [0108] discloses a common scenario where a vehicle ahead of the ego vehicle is driving slower or perhaps stopped and the adaptive cruise control attempts to pass the vehicle in via an open adjacent lane but a different vehicle is detected to be currently occupying the adjacent lane, which is construed by the Examiner as teaching the termination of the method of an initial driving situation when a further driving situation is detected).
Regarding claim 14, Posch discloses:
The method according to claim 11, wherein detecting the occurrence of the predetermined driving situation and identifying the start time and the end time of the predetermined driving situation take place based on sensor data that are used by the driver assistance system for longitudinal control (see claim 1 regarding detecting occurrences if driving situations, time intervals and use of sensor data utilized in longitudinal control of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Posch discloses:
The method according to claim 11, wherein the driver assistance system is an adaptive cruise control ([0003] and [0007] use of adaptive cruise control wherein the adaptive cruise control unburdens the driver in terms of maintaining his own vehicle at the desired distance from a vehicle ahead of it if that vehicle is traveling more slowly than the desired speed selected by the driver.).
Regarding claim 16, Posch discloses:
The method according to claim 11 (see claim 11), wherein the initial
condition is satisfied when at least one of:
control by way of the driver assistance system starts in response to an object in response to which previously no control by the driver assistance system took place ([0107] discloses a situation where a vehicle being followed brakes and the ADAS system initiates based on when a predefined distance threshold is exceeded);
an indication of an object on a display of the ego vehicle that was previously not active is activated by way of the driver assistance system ([0005] visual, acoustic and/or haptic warnings to strengthen the driver reaction and [0008] through the combination of radar and camera, even merging vehicles, vehicles traveling ahead and vehicles traveling ahead of them in the vehicle's own lane and in neighboring lanes can be detected and reacted to in good time, which is construed by the Examiner as necessarily detecting vehicles that were not previously active such as a vehicle merging from an offramp);
control by way of the driver assistance system in response to an object in response to which previously control by way of the driver assistance system took place is ended (see [0107] where a reaction is initialized and [0108] a situation is disclosed where a reaction based on a driving situation ends (braking for a slower vehicle but deciding to switch lanes), a new driving situation is introduced and terminates the new reaction (can no longer switch lanes so ego vehicle remains in current lane), and the ADAS reacts again to the vehicle being followed that is moving slower (i.e., braking in order to slow the ego vehicle));
an indication of an object on a display of the ego vehicle that was previously active is deactivated by way of the driver assistance system ([0171] lane keeping assist is deactivated at, which manifests itself as the dropout of the lane keeping assist activity line, which is construed as an indication of deactivation of a driver assistance system);
an object ahead of the ego vehicle in response to which previously no control by way of the driver assistance system took place and which has a lower longitudinal speed than the ego vehicle that is not opposite to a longitudinal speed of the ego vehicle is recorded (see [0107] as described above and [0119] s.2, All available parameters are preferably recorded continuously, thus enabling a continuous characterization of the vehicle during the driving cycle);
an object is classified as a vehicle moving into the lane by way of an environment model used by the driver assistance system ([0008] through the combination of radar and camera, even merging vehicles (vehicles moving into the lane), vehicles traveling ahead and vehicles traveling ahead of them in the vehicle's own lane and in neighboring lanes can be detected and reacted to in good time and [0111] system analyzes environmental parameters, which is construed by the Examiner as utilizing an environmental model),
an active direction indicator, pointing in a direction of the ego vehicle, of an object in an adjacent lane is detected ([0008] as described above concerning merging vehicles which necessarily would utilize their directional indicators);
an object in an adjacent lane comes closer to a driving path of the ego vehicle than a predetermined transverse distance and has a transversal speed in the direction of the ego vehicle ([0008] as described above concerning merging vehicles being detected);
an object in response to which control by way of the driver assistance system is currently taking place is classified as a vehicle moving out of the lane by way of an environment model used by the driver assistance system ([0008] and [0111] as seen above);
an active direction indicator of an object in response to which control by the driver assistance system is currently taking place is detected(see [0008] and [0108] as described above in claim 13);
an object in response to which control by way of the driver assistance system is currently taking place exceeds a predetermined transverse distance from a center of a driving path of the ego vehicle and has a transversal speed leading away from the ego vehicle(see [0008] and [0108] as described above in claim 13);
the ego vehicle activates its direction indicator in a direction of a clear adjacent lane as long as the ego vehicle is following behind another vehicle and/or an object is driving in the clear adjacent lane; or the ego vehicle performs a steering movement such that a driving path of the ego vehicle passes by the object in response to which control by way of the driver assistance system is currently taking place (see [0008] and [0108] as described above in claim 13).
Regarding claims 17-19, the Applicant has elected to cancel these claims and therefore they are no longer being considered.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Lüke et al. (EP Pat. Pub. No. 2404195 A1) is directed towards method for automatically detecting a driving maneuver of a motor vehicle (A), in particular during a passing maneuver or an evasive maneuver.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights