DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 6/25/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-13, 17, 21, 25, 31-32, 34, 37, 39, 48, 50, 52, and 54 are pending.
Claims 1, 25, 48, and 50 are the independent claims.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 6, 10-11, 12, 17, 39, 50, 52, and 54 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 states “and the lateral width of the lateral proximity region is greater than the lateral width of the longitudinal region” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear thus indefinite. From where is this measurement being made? Is this from the edge of the vehicle, the center point of the vehicle, how are these widths being compared? Does this mean from one side of the vehicle, or both sides? Are we measuring from the vehicle as width, or are these both in the same direction? For example, if measuring from the center of the vehicle, most vehicles are longer than wide, even a buffer of equal amounts around the vehicle would be shorter laterally, and a longitudinal? Further, when looking at the drawings, there is no line between lateral and longitudinal regions, they are as one, thus it is unclear where the boundary is to compare widths? Further, Claim 6 states “length of the longitudinal proximity region is greater than a longitudinal length of the lateral proximity region” and again the metes and bounds of these claims are unclear, thus indefinite. The Office looked into the specification, and Figures 1 and 2 for understanding as to widths but then in Figure 16, there appears to be exact opposite as to what applicant is trying to claim, thus the claims as currently presented are unclear, thus indefinite. Where are the boundaries for longitudinal and lateral and how are we supposed to compare these? As currently presented Claim 6 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any dynamic region that can fit longer and shorter sides and fronts as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6 since where the lateral width of the longitudinal region is located. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 17 states “wherein the longitudinal proximity region includes a forward longitudinal proximity region and a rearward longitudinal proximity region” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear thus indefinite. Where is the boundary from front to side to rear? When the Office looks at the drawings, these regions appear to be all one region, thus deciphering what is the longitudinal, what is the lateral, where the boundary is, what would constituted lateral and what would not? As currently presented Claim 17 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as any regions in the forward and backward direction, as reading on this, as this appears to be what the specification supports. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 37 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6.
Claim 50 states “defining a forward proximity region having a forward proximity region shape defined by an outer perimeter of the forward proximity region” and the metes of bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. This limitation appears to be cyclical as the region is defined by the shape of the region. What is this shape? The claim goes on to state that the region is further defined based on length and width, but without knowing this variable, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as any shape. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 54 states “wherein the expected path of travel is defined by an axis extending in a direction from a rear wheel of the motorcycle toward a front wheel of the motorcycle” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear thus indefinite. What does toward the front wheel mean? Since a vehicle has some distance between the rear and front wheels, towards means almost any direction ahead, correct? Further, this limitation appears to define straight forward path, that never turns or changes, based on Figures 5 and 7, which would be any vehicle traveling forward, but then in Figure 14, the axis is curved which is confusing as to what is being claimed. Are these 3 figures the same as the axis travels from the rear wheel toward the front wheel or is there something difference going on? If these are all the same, would not any path forward read on this? As currently presented, Claim 54 fails to clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any path forward, as the trajectory would be an axis going through the rear and front wheels. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 11, 12, 39 and 52 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 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-2, 5-6, 10-13, 17, 21, 25, 31-32, 34, 37, 39, 48, 50, 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an process. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 25 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 25 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 48 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 48 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 50 is directed to a method. Therefore, Claim 50 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 25, 48 and 50 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 48 (which depends on Claim 25) will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 48 recites: A motorcycle that includes a front wheel, a rear wheel, a frame, an engine, and the ADAS of claim 25;
an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) for a motorcycle, comprising: a first sensor
for detecting a boundary of a lane of a road;
a control unit in communication with the first sensor via an interface, the control unit including a processor and memory device storing instructions readable by the processor, the processor configured to:
receive information from the first sensor regarding the boundary of the lane of the road,
determine a lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane based at least in part on the information from the first sensor,
define an adaptable proximity region that includes a first proximity region defined at least in part by the first lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane,
the first proximity region defining a first area of the lane proximal to the motorcycle and having a first proximity-region shape and a first proximity-region size;
determine a second lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane of the road,
the second lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane being different from the first lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane of the road;
and redefine the adaptable proximity region to include a second proximity region based on a change in position of the motorcycle from the first lateral position to the second lateral position,
the second proximity region defining a second area of the lane having a second proximity-region shape and a second proximity-region size,
the second area of the lane being different than the first area of the lane,
thereby adapting the adaptable proximity region to the change in lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane; and
a warning device in electrical communication with the control unit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “receiving, determining, and redefining a region based on the received data” steps encompass a user to gather information and continually determine a region. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A motorcycle with a front wheel, rear wheel and engine with an ADAS that has a sensor, a processor, a memory, and an warning device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment (A generic motorcycle). In particular, the “motorcycle with the front/rear wheels, engine and ADAS with processor and memory and a warning device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps of receiving data, determining, and redetermining a region, therefore acting as a generic computer on a vehicle to perform the abstract idea.
Additionally, the “motorcycle with the front/rear wheels, engine and ADAS with processor and memory and a warning device” is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not 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. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor on the ADAS on the motorcycle. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of redefining the regions does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only requires receiving data and continuously determing regions where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving sensor data and using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor and memory to perform the process. Further, the motorcycle with the front/rear wheels, engine and ADAS is also mere insignificant extra-solution activities as these are not necessary for the abstract idea. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining/redetermining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Finally, the warning device is not used or connected to any aspect of the claimed subject matter, thus is clearly insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a motorcycle, the engine, the ADAS, the processor or the memory or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 48 (with Claim 25) does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the “motorcycle with the front/rear wheels, engine and ADAS with processor and memory and a warning device” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component and vehicle components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component or generic vehicle components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data, determining and redetermining regions, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving data, determining and redetermining regions, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensor are conventional sensors, as is the motorcycle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 48 (with 25) are not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1 and 50 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2, 5-6, 10-13, 17, 21, 31-32, 34, 37, 39, 52, and 54 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 25, 48, and 50.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the redefined regions. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-13, 17, 21, 25, 31-32, 34, 37, 39, and 48, are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0174462) in view of Grelaud (United States Patent Publication 2020/0231170).
With respect to Claim 1: While Um discloses “A method of operating a vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (an embodiment of variably setting the boundary area of the ego vehicle in a case that the evasive driving event or the lane change event of the ego vehicle occurs)];
“comprising: obtaining lane-boundary information using a sensor of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (The sensor device 130 may include at least one sensor to sense vehicle information and environment information around the vehicle while the vehicle drives)];
“the lane-boundary information relating to one or more lane boundaries that define a lane of a road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the environment information around the vehicle may include relative position information with respect to nearby vehicles, relative speed information with respect to nearby vehicles, and road attribute information on a driving path)];
“determining a first lateral position of the vehicle within the lane of the road based on the obtained lane-boundary information” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“defining an adaptable proximity region that includes a first proximity region defined at least in part by the first lateral position of the vehicle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the first proximity region defining a first area of the lane proximal to the vehicle and having a first proximity region shape and a first proximity-region size” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the boundary setting device 170 may set a first boundary A1 of the ego vehicle using the size information of the ego vehicle, i.e., an overall width and an overall length of the ego vehicle. In addition, the boundary setting device 170 may set a second boundary A2 of the ego vehicle based on the path following performance of the ego vehicle. Further, the boundary setting device 170 may set a third boundary A3 based on the speed information of the ego vehicle)];
“determining a second lateral position of the vehicle within the lane of the road, the second lateral position of the vehicle within the lane being different from the first lateral position of the vehicle within the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“and redefining the adaptable proximity region to include a second proximity region based on a change in position of the vehicle from the first lateral position to the second lateral position” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the second proximity region defining a second area of the lane having a second proximity-region shape and a second proximity-region size” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the second area of the lane being different than the first area of the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the evasive driving event or the lane change event of the ego vehicle occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may increase a lateral area of a reference boundary area 401 of the ego vehicle. In this case, the boundary setting device 170 may increase the reference boundary area in left and right directions of the ego vehicle. In addition, the boundary setting device 170 may verify a lane change path 405. In this case, the boundary setting device 170 may increase a lateral area 403 of a lane change direction in the reference boundary area 401 of the ego vehicle and decrease a lateral area 402 of a direction opposite to the lane change direction)];
“thereby adapting the adaptable proximity region to the change in lateral position of the vehicle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)];
“comprising: obtaining lane-boundary information using a sensor of the motorcycle” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The edges can be characterized by road markings)];
“the lane-boundary information relating to one or more lane boundaries that define a lane of a road” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The edges can be characterized by road markings)];
“thereby adapting the adaptable proximity region to the change in lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (the left warning region 128 is larger)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: While Um discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the first proximity-region size based upon a speed of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the boundary setting device 170 may set a third boundary A3 based on the speed information of the ego vehicle)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 6: Um discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the first proximity region includes a lateral proximity region and a longitudinal proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
“and the lateral width of the lateral proximity region is greater than the lateral width of the longitudinal region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Figure 4a 403)];
“and a longitudinal length of the longitudinal proximity region is greater than a longitudinal length of the lateral proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Figure 4b 412)].
With respect to Claim 10: Um discloses “The method of claim 6, wherein the lateral width of the longitudinal region is less than a lateral width of the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5)].
With respect to Claim 11: While Um discloses “The method of claim 10, wherein the longitudinal proximity region extends along a first path of travel of the motorcycle extending longitudinally and forward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 12: While Um discloses “The method of claim 10, wherein a longitudinal proximity region of the second proximity region extends along a second path of travel of the motorcycle extending longitudinally and forward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5 and lane keeping)];
“the second path of travel laterally offset in the lane from the first path of travel” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5 and lane keeping)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: Um discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the second proximity region shape based upon a curvature of the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 4d and road attributes)].
With respect to Claim 17: Um discloses “The method of claim 6, wherein the longitudinal proximity region includes a forward longitudinal proximity region and a rearward longitudinal proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5].
With respect to Claim 21: Um discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein redefining the adaptable proximity region to include a second proximity region includes defining a lateral width of the second proximity region to be the same as a lateral width of the first proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5].
With respect to Claim 25: While Um discloses “An advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) for a vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (an embodiment of variably setting the boundary area of the ego vehicle in a case that the evasive driving event or the lane change event of the ego vehicle occurs) and (lane keeping which is ADAS)];
“comprising: a first sensor for detecting a boundary of a lane of a road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (The sensor device 130 may include at least one sensor to sense vehicle information and environment information around the vehicle while the vehicle drives)];
“a control unit in communication with the first sensor via an interface, the control unit including a processor and memory device storing instructions readable by the processor, the processor configured to” [Um, ¶ 0131];
“receive information from the first sensor regarding the boundary of the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the environment information around the vehicle may include relative position information with respect to nearby vehicles, relative speed information with respect to nearby vehicles, and road attribute information on a driving path)];
“determine a lateral position of the vehicle within the lane based at least in part on the information from the first sensor” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“define an adaptable proximity region that includes a first proximity region defined at least in part by the first lateral position of the vehicle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the first proximity region defining a first area of the lane proximal to the vehicle and having a first proximity region shape and a first proximity-region size” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the boundary setting device 170 may set a first boundary A1 of the ego vehicle using the size information of the ego vehicle, i.e., an overall width and an overall length of the ego vehicle. In addition, the boundary setting device 170 may set a second boundary A2 of the ego vehicle based on the path following performance of the ego vehicle. Further, the boundary setting device 170 may set a third boundary A3 based on the speed information of the ego vehicle)];
“determine a second lateral position of the vehicle within the lane of the road, the second lateral position of the vehicle within the lane being different from the first lateral position of the vehicle within the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“redefine the adaptable proximity region to include a second proximity region based on a change in position of the vehicle from the first lateral position to the second lateral position” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the second proximity region defining a second area of the lane having a second proximity-region shape and a second proximity-region size” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“the second area of the lane being different than the first area of the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the evasive driving event or the lane change event of the ego vehicle occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may increase a lateral area of a reference boundary area 401 of the ego vehicle. In this case, the boundary setting device 170 may increase the reference boundary area in left and right directions of the ego vehicle. In addition, the boundary setting device 170 may verify a lane change path 405. In this case, the boundary setting device 170 may increase a lateral area 403 of a lane change direction in the reference boundary area 401 of the ego vehicle and decrease a lateral area 402 of a direction opposite to the lane change direction)];
“thereby adapting the adaptable proximity region to the change in lateral position of the vehicle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
“and a warning device in electrical communication with the control unit” [Um, ¶ 0098-0099 (generated collision warning message through the output device)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)];
“comprising: obtaining lane-boundary information using a sensor of the motorcycle” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The edges can be characterized by road markings)];
“the lane-boundary information relating to one or more lane boundaries that define a lane of a road” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The edges can be characterized by road markings)];
“thereby adapting the adaptable proximity region to the change in lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (the left warning region 128 is larger)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 31: Um discloses “The ADAS of claim 25, further comprising a second sensor that comprises a radar or lidar system, and wherein the first sensor comprises a camera system” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041 (may include an ultrasonic sensor, a scanner, a camera, etc. The sensor device 130 should not be limited thereto or thereby as long as the sensor may sense the vehicle information and the environment information around the vehicle)].
With respect to Claim 32: While Um discloses “The ADAS of claim 25, wherein the processor is further configured to change the first proximity-region size based upon a speed of the vehicle or based upon an operator-selectable input received by the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (the boundary setting device 170 may set a third boundary A3 based on the speed information of the ego vehicle)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 34: Um discloses “The ADAS of claim 25, wherein the processor is further configured to define the first proximity region to include a lateral proximity region and a longitudinal proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5].
With respect to Claim 37: While Um discloses “The ADAS of claim 34, wherein the processor is further configured to define a lateral width of the longitudinal region to be less than a lateral width of the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5)];
“and to define the longitudinal proximity region to extend along a first path of travel of the vehicle extending longitudinally and forward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 39: While Um discloses “The ADAS of claim 37, wherein the processor is further configured to define a longitudinal proximity region of the second proximity region extends along a second path of travel of the motorcycle extending longitudinally and forward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5 and lane keeping)];
“the second path of travel laterally offset in the lane from the first path of travel” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig 5 and lane keeping)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 48: While Um discloses “A vehicle that includes a front wheel, a rear wheel, a frame, an engine, and the ADAS of claim 25” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0174462) in view of Grelaud (United States Patent Publication 2020/0231170) and in further view of Grelaud (United States Patent Publication 2020/0108830)-(G2 for citing purposes).
With respect to Claim 5: While Um discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the first proximity-region size based upon an data received by the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle or that a user in inputting data for the control of the regions.
G2, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the first proximity-region size based upon an operator-selectable input received by the motorcycle” [G2, ¶ 0014 and 0017 (Alternatively, it is also possible that the minimum lateral distance is selected by the driver directly)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of G2 into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have user input for region control of vehicles such as motorcycles as taught by G2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art G2 into Um to create a more robust system that can assist in user safety and help define personalized safety buffers for vehicles. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 50, 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Um et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0174462) in view of Grelaud (United States Patent Publication 2020/0231170) and in further view of Shah (United States Patent Publication 2022/0185266).
With respect to Claim 50: While Um discloses “A method of dynamically defining a region proximal to a vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (an embodiment of variably setting the boundary area of the ego vehicle in a case that the evasive driving event or the lane change event of the ego vehicle occurs)];
“determining a lateral position of the vehicle in the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)];
“defining a forward proximity region having a forward proximity region shape defined by an outer perimeter of the forward proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (a first boundary of the ego vehicle based on size information of the ego vehicle)];
“a forward length” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig. 4b)];
“a first lateral forward width at a first end that extends substantially from the first lane boundary to the second lane boundary along an axis normal to the first and second lane boundaries” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig. 5)];
“and that intersects a portion of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig. 5)];
“and a second lateral forward width at a second end forward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig. 5)];
“and changing the forward proximity region shape based on a change of the lateral position of the vehicle in the lane of the road” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (when it is determined that the driving lane keeping event occurs, the boundary setting device 170 may set an additional boundary area 512 to a reference boundary area 511 of the ego vehicle to determine the sense of discomfort felt by the driver due to the nearby vehicle)].
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Um also does not specifically state that there are two different widths of the regions.
Shah, which is also a vehicle control system that has dynamic regions for vehicle control and that changes these regions ahead of the vehicle teaches “and a second lateral forward width at a second end forward of the vehicle and that is less than the first lateral forward width” [Shah, Abstract ¶ 0028-0029, 0034 with Figure 1 (in various examples, the dimensions (e.g., width, length, and/or height) of the relevance polygon 104 may be determined based on a speed (illustrated as S) associated with the vehicle 102)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shah into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions with varying widths for vehicle control for as taught by Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Shah into Um to create a more robust system that can save processing power and make safer operations of vehicles by changing regions of interest for vehicle control [Shah, ¶ 0001]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 52: While Um discloses “The method of claim 50, further comprising defining a rearward proximity region that is rearward of the forward proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
“and wherein defining the rearward proximity region comprises defining the rearward proximity region to have a rearward length” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (Fig. 4c)];
“a first rearward lateral width at a first end that extends substantially from the first lane boundary to the second lane boundary along the axis normal to the first and second lane boundaries and that intersects the portion of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5];
“and a second lateral rearward width at a second end rearward of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a and 5 (a first boundary of the ego vehicle based on size information of the ego vehicle)];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Um also does not specifically state that there are two different widths of the regions.
Shah, which is also a vehicle control system that has dynamic regions for vehicle control and that changes these regions ahead of the vehicle teaches “and a second lateral rearward width at a second end rearward of the vehicle and that is less than the first lateral rearward width” [Shah, Abstract ¶ 0028-0029, 0034 with Figure 1 (in various examples, the initial relevance polygon 104 may include an initial front longitudinal distance and a rear longitudinal distance based on the speed. In various examples, the vehicle computing system may determine to modify the width and/or length of the initial relevance polygon 104. In various examples, a modification to the width and/or length may result in different lateral and/or longitudinal extents of the relevance polygon 104)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shah into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions with varying widths for vehicle control for as taught by Shah with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Shah into Um to create a more robust system that can save processing power and make safer operations of vehicles by changing regions of interest for vehicle control [Shah, ¶ 0001]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 54: While Um discloses “The method of claim 50, wherein defining a forward proximity region comprises defining the forward proximity region to encompass a portion of an expected path of travel of the vehicle “[Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a,b,c and 5];
“wherein the expected path of travel is defined by an axis extending in a direction from a rear wheel of the vehicle toward a front wheel of the vehicle” [Um, ¶ 0040-0041, 0050-0053, 0068-0070, and 0093-0094 with Figures 3, 4a,b,c and 5];
Um does not specifically state that this is a motorcycle, rather a generic vehicle such as a car.
Grelaud, which is also a dynamic region changing system for vehicles and thus in the same endeavor as Um teaches “A method of operating a motorcycle” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (monitoring a blind spot of a two-wheeled vehicle)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grelaud into the invention of Um to not only include gathering vehicle data, road data, environment data, and attribute data for creating dynamic regions for vehicle control as Um discloses but to also have dynamic regions for vehicle control for motorcycles as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grelaud into Um to create a more robust system that can be used on all manner of vehicles, such as motorcycles further demonstrates the changing of regions for all types of vehicles, not just cars. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as changing vehicle control regions based on sensor data and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c