DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “overtaking the vehicle” should read “overtaking the preceding vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 and 15-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 13 and 15 are each directed to an apparatus and each recite a “control arrangement” in the preamble, wherein this “control arrangement” is “configured to” perform all functions recited in claims 13 and 15-22 (where all limitations in claims 13 and 15-22 are functions, aside from the “control arrangement” itself, and the “vehicle” in claim 15-22). However, “control arrangement” does not imply any specific structure in this art, and would otherwise be interpreted under 112(f) if not recited in the preamble of the claim. Therefore, the structure of each of claims 13 and 15-22 is unclear without some adequate recitation of structure which is configured to perform all of the functions recited in claims 13 and 15-22 (i.e., an electronic controller/circuit which is what is supported in the specification). For continued examination, “control arrangement” is interpreted as “controller”.
Claims 16-22 are also rejected by virtue of dependence.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a computer program product” (See MPEP 2106.03 I. for description of “computer program” or “software” per se). The rejection can be overcome by directing the claim to the non-transitory computer readable medium which is configured to store the computer program product, instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sternberg et al (DE102020006699A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sternberg teaches a method for providing assistance regarding a vehicle (5) overtaking a preceding vehicle (9) travelling ahead of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0006+, 0024; Figure 1), the method comprising: obtaining information indicative of vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle that affects driving performance of the preceding vehicle in an upcoming road segment; and providing, based on the obtained information, a recommendation regarding whether to overtake the preceding vehicle (Paragraphs 0008-0013, 0017, 0019-0020, 0024).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the recommendation is based on expected driving benefits and/or risks associated with overtaking the preceding vehicle, wherein the driving benefits and/or risks are associated with vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle, wherein the benefits and risks comprises: benefits comprising one or more of: a time gain associated with overtaking, and an energy gain associated with overtaking, and risks comprising one or more of: a duration of the overtaking exceeding a safety limit, and that it will not be possible to overtake within a road segment having properties suitable for overtaking, and that it will not be possible to overtake within a certain distance (Paragraphs 0011, 0015, 0016, 0024, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the driving performance is associated with acceleration capability, braking capability, and/or a speed limitation of the preceding vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 5, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the properties comprise one or more of vehicle dynamics, tires, vehicle mass, propulsion power, braking effect, and speed limitation of the preceding vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 6, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the obtaining comprises receiving the information using vehicle-to-everything (“V2X”) communication or based on sensor measurements (Paragraphs 0006, 0013, and 0024 [e.g., speed from second vehicle transmitted from "data protocol unit" to the "overtaking assistant").
Regarding claim 7, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the recommendation is further based on one or more of: map data, friction data, and vehicle speed of the vehicle to overtake (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 8, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the method comprises: estimating an expected speed of the preceding vehicle in an upcoming road; and providing a recommendation to overtake upon a speed of the vehicle exceeding the estimated expected speed of the preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount (Paragraphs 0006+).
Regarding claim 9, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the speed is estimated based on the vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 10, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the providing comprises providing the recommendation regarding whether to overtake on a user interface or to an autonomous driving function (Paragraphs 0006, 0018, 0024).
Regarding claim 11, Sternberg teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store a computer program product, said computer program product for providing assistance regarding a vehicle overtaking a preceding vehicle travelling ahead of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0006+, 0024; Figure 1),wherein said computer program product comprises computer instructions to cause one or more computer processors to perform the following operations: obtaining information indicative of vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle that affects driving performance of the preceding vehicle in an upcoming road segment; and providing, based on the obtained information, a recommendation regarding whether to overtake the preceding vehicle (Paragraphs 0008-0013, 0017, 0019-0020, 0024).
Regarding claim 13, Sternberg teaches a controller configured to operate a vehicle comprising secondary brakes (See "overtaking assistant"; Paragraphs 0006+, 0024; Figure 1), wherein the controller is configured to: obtain information indicative of vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle that are affecting driving performance of the preceding vehicle; and provide, based on the obtained information, a recommendation regarding whether to overtake the preceding vehicle (Paragraphs 0008-0013, 0017, 0019-0020, 0024).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the recommendation is based on expected driving benefits and/or risks associated with overtaking the preceding vehicle, wherein the driving benefits and/or risks are associated with vehicle properties of the preceding vehicle, wherein the benefits and risks comprises: benefits comprising one or more of: a time gain associated with overtaking, and an energy gain associated with overtaking, and risks comprising one or more of: a duration of the overtaking exceeding a safety limit, and that it will not be possible to overtake within a road segment having properties suitable for overtaking, and that it will not be possible to overtake within a certain distance (Paragraphs 0011, 0015, 0016, 0024, etc.).
Regarding claim 18, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the driving performance is associated with acceleration capability, braking capability, and/or a speed limitation of the preceding vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 19, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the properties comprise one or more of vehicle dynamics, tires, vehicle mass, propulsion power, braking effect, and speed limitation of the preceding vehicle (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 20, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the obtaining comprises receiving the information using vehicle-to-everything (“V2X”) communication or based on sensor measurements (Paragraphs 0006, 0013, and 0024 [e.g., speed from second vehicle transmitted from "data protocol unit" to the "overtaking assistant").
Regarding claim 21, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the recommendation is further based on one or more of: map data, friction data, and vehicle speed of the vehicle to overtake (See previously cited sections).
Regarding claim 22, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and Sternberg teaches that the method comprises: estimating an expected speed of the preceding vehicle in an upcoming road; and providing a recommendation to overtake upon a speed of the vehicle exceeding the estimated expected speed of the preceding vehicle by a predetermined amount (Paragraphs 0006+).
Regarding claim 15, Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, and teaches the vehicle comprising the invention of claim 13 as discussed in the sections cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R STECKBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-0433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30-7:30 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN R STECKBAUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747