DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Analysis - 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, 3-11, and 13-22 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the actuating step in each independent claim applies 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo. Specifically, the claimed invention improves the safety of motor vehicles.
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 1, 3-11, and 13-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 1 line 4.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 1 line 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 1 line 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 1 line 4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 11 line 2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 11 line 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 11 line 2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following the host vehicle-- has been considered as inserted following claim 11 line 2.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation --determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following-- has been considered as inserted following claim 21 line 4.
Claims 3-10, 13-20, and 22 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by UENOYAMA (US 11,891,079).
Regarding claim 11, UENOYAMA discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (OP101, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 20-21; GPS, col. 7 lines 1-10);
determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle (OP105, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 41-43); and
in response to a determination that the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle (OP105, Fig. 4, col. 10 lines 41-43), actuating a component of the host vehicle (OP108, Fig. 4, col. 11 lines 31-33).
The limitation “wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, UENOYAMA discloses the method of claim 11.
UENOYAMA further discloses wherein the determination that the host vehicle is in the passing lane is based on location information from a host vehicle GNSS sensor (GPS, col. 7 lines 1-10; c.f. Applicant’s 0034 lines 9-12).
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEE (US 9,925,989).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a system, comprising:
a computer that includes a processor and a memory (col. 3 lines 47-52), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to:
determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (S14, Fig. 1, col. 7 lines 14-17);
determine that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane (implied, i.a. col. 14 lines 58-63, col. 16 lines 21-22) is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle (approaching, i.a. col. 16 lines 21-22); and
in response to a determination that the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle, actuate a component of the host vehicle (Fig. 11, col. 12 lines 49-55 and 64-67, col. 16 lines 21-26).
The limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses the system of claim 1.
LEE further discloses wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in a lane adjacent to the passing lane (determination of gap implied/inherent in determination of distances to vehicles 6 and 8, Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 9, LEE discloses the system of claim 1.
LEE further discloses wherein the determination that the rearward vehicle is approaching or closely following is based on distance information received from a host vehicle sensor (col. 9 lines 13-17, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, LEE discloses the system of claim 1.
LEE further discloses wherein the determination that the host vehicle is in the passing lane is based on lane attributes identified by a host vehicle camera (S32, Fig. 3B, col. 9 lines 37-38).
Regarding claim 11, LEE discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (S14, Fig. 1, col. 7 lines 14-17);
determining that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane (implied, i.a. col. 14 lines 58-63, col. 16 lines 21-22) is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle (approaching, i.a. col. 16 lines 21-22); and
in response to a determination that the rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching or closely following (closely following is an optional limitation in the claim) the host vehicle, actuating a component of the host vehicle (Fig. 11, col. 12 lines 49-55 and 64-67, col. 16 lines 21-26).
The limitation “wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, LEE discloses the method of claim 11.
LEE further discloses determining that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in a lane adjacent to the passing lane (determination of gap implied/inherent in determination of distances to vehicles 6 and 8, Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 19, LEE discloses the method of claim 11.
LEE discloses wherein the determination that the rearward vehicle is approaching or closely following is based on distance information received from a host vehicle sensor (col. 9 lines 13-17, Fig. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 13-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RODRIGUEZ (US 10,372,131) in view of SU (US 10,466,717).
Regarding claim 1, RODRIGUEZ discloses a system, comprising:
a computer (602) that includes a processor (614) and a memory (616)(col. 9 lines 3-4), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to (col. 11 lines 13-19):
determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20, col. 14 lines 61-65); and
in response to a determination that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching (approaching is an optional limitation in the claim) or closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15), actuate a component of the host vehicle (col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ further discloses the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance based upon the speed of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is calculated.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches instructions (col. 24 lines 24-26) to determine that a rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is calculated, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 3, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 1.
The limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a threshold amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 3.
The limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include further instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 3.
The limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in greater than a low threshold amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, RODRIGUEZ discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20, col. 14 lines 61-65); and
in response to a determination that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching (approaching is an optional limitation in the claim) or closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15), actuating a component of the host vehicle (col. 3 lines 18-20);
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is calculated.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches determining that the rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is calculated, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
Regarding claim 13, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 11.
The limitation “wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching includes determining that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a threshold amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 13.
The limitation “wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching includes determining that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the method of claim 13.
The limitation “wherein determining that the rearward vehicle is approaching includes determining that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in greater than a low threshold amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, RODRIGUEZ discloses a system, comprising:
a computer (602) that includes a processor (614) and a memory (616)(col. 9 lines 3-4), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to (col. 11 lines 13-19):
determine that a host vehicle is in a passing lane of a highway (implied, i.a. col. 3 lines 13-20, col. 14 lines 61-65); and
in response to a determination that a rearward vehicle in the passing lane is approaching (approaching is an optional limitation in the claim) or closely following the host vehicle (i.a. within a predetermined distance, col. 3 line 15), actuate a component of the host vehicle (col. 3 lines 18-20).
RODRIGUEZ further discloses the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is closely following include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance based upon the speed of the vehicle (col. 5 lines 37-46) but is silent regarding how the threshold distance is calculated.
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to teach the threshold distance is a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time as claimed.
SU teaches instructions (col. 24 lines 24-26) to determine that a rearward vehicle is closely following (col. 6 lines 12-14) include instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a threshold distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time (col. 6 lines 22-31).
Absent guidance from RODRIGUEZ on how the threshold distance is calculated, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the threshold distance of RODRIGUEZ as taught by SU to provide a dynamic threshold that automatically adjusts to varying vehicle speeds. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in calculating the threshold distance in this fashion in the practice of Applicant’s invention.
The limitation “wherein the instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle is approaching include instructions to determine that the rearward vehicle will reach the host vehicle in less than a threshold amount of time and/or instructions to determine that a separation distance between the host vehicle and the rearward vehicle is less than a distance that the rearward vehicle will travel in a specified amount of time” further defines an optional limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 9,925,989) in view of TOMESCU (US 11,148,669, provided by Applicant on 08/01/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses the system of claim 1.
LEE further discloses the component is a driver-vehicle interface (col. 14 line 61).
LEE further acknowledges that ADAS are known to automatically operate a vehicle (col. 1 lines 32-34).
LEE is not relied upon to teach the component is an actuator of a steering system as claimed.
TOMESCU teaches when a rearward vehicle (B, Fig. 6) in the passing lane (col. 6 lines 56-57) is approaching a host vehicle (A, Fig. 6), actuate an actuator of a steering system (steering unit, col. 4 line 46) of the host vehicle (col. 7 lines 4-8) so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated (col. 4 lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of LEE to automatically initiate the lane change as taught by TOMESCU so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated.
Regarding claim 8, LEE as modified teaches the system of claim 7.
LEE as modified currently teaches wherein the instructions include further instructions to actuate the actuator of the steering system to move the host vehicle out of the passing lane (as taught by Tomescu above, Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 41-46, col. 6 lines 56-57, col. 7 lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 17, LEE discloses the method of claim 11.
LEE further discloses the component is a driver-vehicle interface (col. 14 line 61).
LEE further acknowledges the ADAS are known to automatically operate a vehicle (col. 1 lines 32-34).
LEE is not relied upon to teach the component is an actuator of a steering system as claimed.
TOMESCU teaches when a rearward vehicle (B, Fig. 6) in the passing lane (col. 6 lines 56-57) is approaching a host vehicle (A, Fig. 6), actuating an actuator of a steering system (steering unit, col. 4 line 46) of the host vehicle (col. 7 lines 4-8) so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated (col. 4 lines 41-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of LEE to automatically initiate the lane change as taught by TOMESCU so that if a vehicle is approaching the host vehicle at such a high speed that the driver is not left with sufficient reaction time to change lanes, the lane change is preferably automatically initiated.
Regarding claim 18, LEE as modified teaches the method of claim 17.
LEE as modified currently teaches actuating the actuator to move the host vehicle out of the passing lane (as taught by Tomescu above, Fig. 6, col. 4 lines 41-46, col. 6 lines 56-57, col. 7 lines 4-8).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RODRIGUEZ (US 10,372,131) in view of SU (US 10,466,717) and MAASS (US 9,576,483).
Regarding claim 22, RODRIGUEZ as modified teaches the system of claim 21.
RODRIGUEZ further discloses wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine that a lane adjacent to the passing lane is clear before causing the host vehicle to change lanes from the passing lane into the adjacent lane (col. 12 line 67 - col. 13 line 2).
RODRIGUEZ is not relied upon to determine that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as claimed.
MAASS teaches determining that a gap exists between a forward adjacent vehicle and a rearward adjacent vehicle in an adjacent lane (abstract lines 4-7) from which lane change options are ascertained (abstract lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the determining that the passing lane is clear in RODRIGUEZ to further include determining that a gap exists in the adjacent lane as taught by MAASS so that the host vehicle may be moved into a gap in the adjacent lane safely and avoid causing an accident.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 12/26/2025.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to newly discovered references RODRIGUEZ and SU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747