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, 6, 10, 17, 25, 37, 50, and 64 have been amended.
Claims 1, 25, 48, and 50 are the independent claims.
This Non-Final Office action was in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” was received on 5/14/2026
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 5/14/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Claim 6, 10-11, 12, 17, 39, 50, 52, and 54 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are were persuasive. Therefore the Claim 6, 10-11, 12, 17, 39, 50, 52, and 54 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are were persuasive. Therefore the Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections of 1-2, 5-6, 10-13, 17, 21, 25, 31-32, 34, 37, 39, 48, 50, 52, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, with respect to Claims 1-21, “particularly designed for a motorcycle as compared to a generic vehicle” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It remains the Office’s stance that it is the combination of both cited prior arts that teach the claimed subject matter. Um clearly discloses changing a proximity region around a vehicle based on speed, road, other vehicles location. Further, Grelaud teaches that proximity regions can further change based on lane markers, other vehicles, and the location of the vehicle, here a motorcycle within the lane, as the claims require. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and that 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 within a lane, in particular 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. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Applicant remarks, with respect to Claims 25-48, “the cited references do not teach these claim elements.” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, merely writing the claims and stating that the cited and mapped out prior art does not teach this is not a convincing remark. What is missing, what steps are not mapped? What limitation is lacking? As mapped out previously, and mapped out below in response the amendments, the distinct limitations have been mapped and cited in the prior art. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees with applicants remarks.
Applicant remarks, with respect to Claims 50-54, “he cited references do not teach these claim elements” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, merely writing the claims and stating that the cited and mapped out prior art does not teach this is not a convincing remark. What is missing, what steps are not mapped? What limitation is lacking? As mapped out previously, and mapped out below in response the amendments, the distinct limitations have been mapped and cited in the prior art. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees with applicants remarks.
With respect to the Claim 6, 10-11, 12, 17, 39, 50, 52, and 54 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are were persuasive. Therefore the Claim 6, 10-11, 12, 17, 39, 50, 52, and 54 rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
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 § 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, 13, 21, 25, 31-32, 34, 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];
“monitoring, using the one or more sensors, for a presence of an object within the adaptable proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0012, 0040-0041, and 0098-0099];
“and activating an action in response to detecting the presence of the object within the adaptable proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0012, 0040-0041, and 0098-0099];
“wherein the action is based on the adaptable proximity region as redefined based on the second lateral position of the vehicle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0012, 0040-0041, and 0098-0099].
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, 0039, 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 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 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 based at least in part on the information from the first sensor, 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)];
“the warning device being configured to generate a warning response the presence of an object within the adaptable proximity region” [Um, ¶ 0023, 0040-0041, and 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)];
“determine a lateral position of the vehicle within the lane based at least in part on the information from the first sensor” [Grelaud, A ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, 0039, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The determination of the lateral position inside the vehicle's own lane 120 can be performed by a surrounding environment detection device such as a camera system installed in the direction of travel and having a lane recognition system, a rearward-directed camera system with lane recognition, or using a high-precision GPS position and precise map information or lane information)];
“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 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 based on one or more sensors” [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 first 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 first forward proximity region shape to a second 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)]
“monitoring, using the one or more sensors, for a presence of an object within the first forward proximity region with the second forward proximity region shape” [Um, ¶ 0023, 0040-0041, and 0098-0099 (generated collision warning message through the output device)];
“and activating an action in response to detecting the presence of the object within the first forward proximity region with the second forward proximity region shape, wherein the action is based on the adaptable proximity region as redefined based on the lateral position of the motorcycle within the lane” [Um, ¶ 0023, 0040-0041, and 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)];
“determining a lateral position of the vehicle in the lane of the road based on one or more sensors” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, 0039, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The determination of the lateral position inside the vehicle's own lane 120 can be performed by a surrounding environment detection device such as a camera system installed in the direction of travel and having a lane recognition system, a rearward-directed camera system with lane recognition, or using a high-precision GPS position and precise map information or lane information)];
“and changing the first forward proximity region shape to a second forward proximity region shape based on a change of the lateral position of the vehicle in the lane of the road” [Grelaud, Abstract, ¶ 0009-0010, 0013, 0039, with 0044-0045 and Figures 4-5 (The determination of the lateral position inside the vehicle's own lane 120 can be performed by a surrounding environment detection device such as a camera system installed in the direction of travel and having a lane recognition system, a rearward-directed camera system with lane recognition, or using a high-precision GPS position and precise map information or lane information)]
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 representing a forward trajectory 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10, 11, 12, 17, 37, and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
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
Prosecution Insights