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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 04/16/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objection to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendment to Fig. 1.
The previous rejections to claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the previous rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been partially withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 16 and the arguments on pages 7-8 of the remarks regarding claim 12.
Regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant asserts on page 7 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
302
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 9, as amended, introduces each of “a request to illuminate a brake light” and “a brake light” in line 3; however, claim 9 is dependent from claim 8, and claim 8, as amended, previously introduces each of “a request to illuminate a brake light” in lines 9-10, and “a brake light” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “brake light” introduced in line 3 of claim 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “brake light” previously introduced in line 10 of claim 8. Also, it is unclear whether the “request to illuminate a brake light” in line 3 of claim 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “request to illuminate a brake light” previously introduced in lines 9-10 of claim 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Regarding the prior art rejections of independent claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Applicant-admitted prior art (hereinafter: “AAPA”), Applicant asserts on pages 10-12 of the remarks that AAPA fails to fully teach the amendments to the claims. The examiner does not disagree. Therefore, upon further consideration, amended claims 8 and 16 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139598 to Ichikawa et al. in view of AAPA.
Regarding the prior art rejection of independent claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ichikawa in view of AAPA, Applicant asserts on pages 8-10 of the remarks that Ichikawa and AAPA, alone and in combination, fail to teach or render obvious amended claim 1 because neither Fig. 1 of AAPA nor Ishikawa teaches “determining when to generate a request to illuminate brake lights of a vehicle based on when a forward collision warning and/or a prefill request is generated” (see page 10 of the remarks).
The examiner respectfully disagrees that Ichikawa in view of AAPA fails to render obvious claim 1, and the examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s remarks ignore the obviousness rationales of the prior art rejection of claim 1 set forth by ¶ 30-31 on pages 19-22 of the preceding non-final Office Action.
Indeed, Ichikawa appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electronic processor is configured to generate a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur (because generate a forward collision warning and generate a prefill request are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives), and Ichikawa also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electronic processor is configured to generate the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both. However, AAPA [apparent from at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings in view of at least ¶ 0001-0004, 0009 & 0031 of Applicant’s specification; e.g., ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification admits that Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings (and the corresponding description thereof) is prior art via at least: “FIG. 1 provides an example illustration of when the illumination of brake lights traditionally occurs in vehicles equipped with an ADAS” (emphasis added)”] teaches an analogous system comprising a first electronic processor configured to generate a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification, an electronic processor generates a forward collision warning (e.g., at block 105) prior to a braking start time (e.g., via 110 & 120, or via 115 & 120) responsive to determining that braking of an ego vehicle is likely to occur].
The examiner first maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Ichikawa with the teachings of AAPA such that the first electronic processor is further configured to generate a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur to beneficially warn a driver of a vehicle of the system that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (e.g., a preceding vehicle) (as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0001 & 0003 of Applicant’s specification).
Additionally, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Ichikawa in view of the teachings of AAPA such that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in at least one instance, generate the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning instead of the opposite order (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_E). Performing of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time necessarily occurs in one of three possible orders: (i) generating the request to illuminate the brake light before (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, (ii) generating the request to illuminate the brake light after (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, or (iii) simultaneously generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning. Put differently, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist for ordering performing of each of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. Existence of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) would require a person of ordinary skill in the art to select at least one of said orders (i)-(iii) in order to make the system of Ichikawa modified supra such that each of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning is performed by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. A lack of criticality is demonstrated by Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims for said order because Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims include, as alternatives, each of order (i) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0006 of the specification, and original claim 1) and order (ii) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0007 of the specification, and original claim 8) is critical, such that neither of orders (i) and (ii) is critical. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “prior to” includes prior to by a smallest possible duration, and no aspect of Ichikawa and AAPA discloses or suggests that any of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) [including performing one of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning prior to the other by, for example, a smallest possible duration (so as to be performed virtually simultaneously)] would provide anything other than a reasonable expectation of success in achieving disclosed objectives of early signifying of braking of the vehicle to a driver of a following vehicle and warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (such as a preceding vehicle). In combination, and regardless of a particular order, each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning would merely perform the same function as it does separately. Put differently, ordinary skill and common sense would lead to, at least at times, generating the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning prior, by at least a smallest possible duration to beneficially achieve the disclosed objectives of the early signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle and the warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with the preceding object (such as the preceding vehicle), especially since Ichikawa teaches that generating the request to illuminate the brake light at an earliest possible time before the braking start time when the future braking deceleration is a largest possible amount to beneficially ensure earliest signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C).
Therefore, the prior art rejection of claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claim.
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 8-15 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 8, as amended, introduces “a braking event” in line 9; however, the claim previously introduces “a braking event” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “braking event” introduced in line 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “braking event” previously introduced in line 3. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claims 9-15 are dependent from claim 8, such that claims 9-15 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 8 is rejected.
Claim 9, as amended, introduces each of “a request to illuminate a brake light” and “a brake light” in line 3; however, claim 9 is dependent from claim 8, and claim 8, as amended, previously introduces each of “a request to illuminate a brake light” in lines 9-10, and “a brake light” in line 10, and it is unclear whether the “brake light” introduced in line 3 of claim 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “brake light” previously introduced in line 10 of claim 8. Also, it is unclear whether the “request to illuminate a brake light” in line 3 of claim 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “request to illuminate a brake light” previously introduced in lines 9-10 of claim 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. To overcome the rejections, one suggestion is to amend line 3 of claim 9 to instead recite --[[a]] the request to illuminate [[a]] the brake light--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “wherein generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both includes: generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both prior to the braking event” in lines 1-4; however, claim 15 depends from claim 8, and claim 8, as amended, now recites “in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur, generating, with the first electronic processor, a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both; and, after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both, generating, with the first electronic processor and prior to the braking event, the request to illuminate the brake light” (emphasis added) in lines 5-10. Therefore, claim 15 is now of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0139598 to Ichikawa et al. (hereinafter: “Ichikawa”) in view of Applicant-admitted prior art (hereinafter: “AAPA”).
With respect to claim 1, Ichikawa teaches a system for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination [the preamble recitation “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” merely states purpose or intended use of the claimed system which neither necessarily results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor necessarily further distinctly defines any limitation of the claimed “system,” as deletion of “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” would not affect the structure of the claimed “system” (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C in view of at least ¶ 0007-0009], the system comprising: a first electronic processor [e.g., electronic control unit (ECU) 10; as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0071 & 0183], the first electronic processor configured to: determine a braking event is likely to occur; and in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur, generate a request to illuminate a brake light [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C and as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0071, 0085, 0097-0099, 0121-0145 & 0183, the ECU 10 is structured to perform functions to determine that braking will be performed in the future (e.g., at S12), and generate, in response to determining that braking will be performed in the future, a request to turn on a brake light 9 of a vehicle V at a light turn-on start time (e.g., via S13-S16), where the light turn-on start time precedes a braking start time by a lead time that is controlled to be longer as a future braking deceleration is larger (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C)].
Ichikawa appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electronic processor is configured to generate a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur (because generate a forward collision warning and generate a prefill request are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives), such that Ichikawa also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electronic processor is configured to generate the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both.
AAPA [apparent from at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings in view of at least ¶ 0001-0004, 0009 & 0031 of Applicant’s specification; e.g., ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification admits that Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings (and the corresponding description thereof) is prior art via at least: “FIG. 1 provides an example illustration of when the illumination of brake lights traditionally occurs in vehicles equipped with an ADAS” (emphasis added)”] teaches an analogous system comprising a first electronic processor configured to generate a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification, an electronic processor generates a forward collision warning (e.g., at block 105) prior to a braking start time (e.g., via 110 & 120, or via 115 & 120) responsive to determining that braking of an ego vehicle is likely to occur].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Ichikawa with the teachings of AAPA such that the first electronic processor is further configured to generate a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur to beneficially warn a driver of a vehicle of the system that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (e.g., a preceding vehicle) (as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0001 & 0003 of Applicant’s specification).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Ichikawa in view of the teachings of AAPA such that the first electronic processor is further configured to, in at least one instance, generate the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning instead of the opposite order (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_E). Performing of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time necessarily occurs in one of three possible orders: (i) generating the request to illuminate the brake light before (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, (ii) generating the request to illuminate the brake light after (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, or (iii) simultaneously generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning. Put differently, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist for ordering performing of each of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. Existence of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) would require a person of ordinary skill in the art to select at least one of said orders (i)-(iii) in order to make the system of Ichikawa modified supra such that each of generate the request to illuminate the brake light and generate the forward collision warning is performed by the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. A lack of criticality is demonstrated by Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims for said order because Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims include, as alternatives, each of order (i) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0006 of the specification, and original claim 1) and order (ii) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0007 of the specification, and original claim 8) is critical, such that neither of orders (i) and (ii) is critical. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “prior to” includes prior to by a smallest possible duration, and no aspect of Ichikawa and AAPA discloses or suggests that any of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) [including performing one of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning prior to the other by, for example, a smallest possible duration (so as to be performed virtually simultaneously)] would provide anything other than a reasonable expectation of success in achieving disclosed objectives of early signifying of braking of the vehicle to a driver of a following vehicle and warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (such as a preceding vehicle). In combination, and regardless of a particular order, each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning would merely perform the same function as it does separately. Put differently, ordinary skill and common sense would lead to, at least at times, generating the request to illuminate the brake light prior to generating the forward collision warning prior, by at least a smallest possible duration to beneficially achieve the disclosed objectives of the early signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle and the warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with the preceding object (such as the preceding vehicle), especially since Ichikawa teaches that generating the request to illuminate the brake light at an earliest possible time before the braking start time when the future braking deceleration is a largest possible amount to beneficially ensure earliest signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C).
With respect to claim 2, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the braking event is at least one selected from the group consisting of braking a vehicle in response to a depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle and braking the vehicle in response to receiving a braking request from the first electronic processor (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 9, & 11B and as discussed by at least ¶ 0122, 0126-0128 & 0131-0133; because braking a vehicle in response to a depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle and braking the vehicle in response to receiving a braking request from the first electronic processor are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 3, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic processor is further configured to: send the request to illuminate the brake light to a second electronic processor included in a braking controller, wherein the second electronic processor is configured to control a brake of a vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C and as discussed by at least ¶ 0067-0068, 0070-0071, 0081, 0091 & 0183, the ECU 10 is optionally configured as a plurality of ECUs, where a second one (e.g., “second electronic processor”) of the plurality of ECUs of the ECU 10 implements functions of at least each of a brake light control unit 18 and a traveling control unit 15 (e.g., “second electronic processor”), where the brake light control unit 18 receives the request to turn on the brake light 9 at the light turn-on start time, and the traveling control unit 15 controls an actuator 6 including a brake actuator of a vehicle V].
With respect to claim 4, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the second electronic processor is configured to: in response to receiving the request to illuminate the brake light, confirm or deny the request to illuminate the brake light; and in response to confirming the request to illuminate the brake light, send the request to illuminate the brake light to the brake light of the vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C and as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0071, 0085, 0097-0099, 0121-0145 & 0183, the second one of the plurality of ECUs of the ECU 10 further implements functions of the brake light control unit 18 by confirming the request to turn on the brake light 9 via determining that a current time has reached the light turn-on start time (e.g., via “YES” at S15), and controlling turning on of the brake light 9 (at S16) responsive to the determining that the current time has reached the light turn-on start time; because confirm the request to illuminate the brake light and deny the request to illuminate the brake light are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
With respect to claim 5, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic processor is included in an adaptive driving assistance system controller (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 9-11B in view of at least ¶ 0057-0058 & 0073-0082).
With respect to claim 6, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic processor is further configured to implement automatic emergency braking (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 9-11B in view of at least ¶ 0057-0058 & 0073-0082); however, Ichikawa appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the first electronic processor is further configured to implement adaptive cruise control.
AAPA further teaches that the first electronic processor of the analogous system is configured to implement adaptive cruise control [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0001 & 0003-0004 of Applicant’s specification, the ego vehicle is equipped with an ADAS providing each of automatic emergency braking (AEB) and adaptive cruise control (ACC)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the system of Ichikawa with the teachings of AAPA, if even necessary, such that the first electronic processor is further configured to implement adaptive cruise control to beneficially expand or enhance autonomous driving capabilities of the vehicle of the system of Ichikawa to automatically adjust vehicle speed to maintain a safe following distance from a preceding vehicle via implementing of said adaptive cruise control.
With respect to claim 7, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to generate the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both prior to the braking event (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Ichikawa teaches a method for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination [the preamble recitation “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” merely states purpose or intended use of the claimed method which neither necessarily results in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor necessarily further distinctly defines any limitation of the claimed method, as deletion of “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” would not affect performing of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C in view of at least ¶ 0007-0009], the method comprising: determining, with a first electronic processor (10), a braking event is likely to occur; and in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur, generating, with the first electronic processor and prior to a braking event, a request to illuminate a brake light (9) [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C and as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0071, 0085, 0097-0099, 0121-0145 & 0183, the electronic control unit (ECU) 10 determines that braking will be performed in the future (e.g., at S12), and generate, in response to determining that braking will be performed in the future, a request to turn on the brake light 9 of a vehicle V at a light turn-on start time (e.g., via S13-S16), where the light turn-on start time precedes a braking start time by a lead time that is controlled to be longer as a future braking deceleration is larger (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C)].
Ichikawa appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes generating, with the first electronic processor, a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur (because generating a forward collision warning and generating a prefill request are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives), such that Ichikawa also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the generating, with the first electronic processor and prior to the braking event, the request to illuminate the brake light occurs after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both.
AAPA [apparent from at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings in view of at least ¶ 0001-0004, 0009 & 0031 of Applicant’s specification; e.g., ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification admits that Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings (and the corresponding description thereof) is prior art via at least: “FIG. 1 provides an example illustration of when the illumination of brake lights traditionally occurs in vehicles equipped with an ADAS” (emphasis added)”] teaches an analogous method comprising generating, with a first electronic processor, a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification, an electronic processor generates a forward collision warning (e.g., at block 105) prior to a braking start time (e.g., via 110 & 120, or via 115 & 120) responsive to determining that braking of an ego vehicle is likely to occur].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Ichikawa with the teachings of AAPA such that the method further includes generating, with the first electronic processor, a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both in response to determining that the braking event is likely to occur to beneficially warn a driver of a vehicle of the system that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (e.g., a preceding vehicle) (as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0001 & 0003 of Applicant’s specification).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Ichikawa in view of the teachings of AAPA such that, in at least one instance, the generating, with the first electronic processor and prior to the braking event, the request to illuminate the brake light occurs after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both instead of the opposite order (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_E). Performing of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning with the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time necessarily occurs in one of three possible orders: (i) generating the request to illuminate the brake light before (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, (ii) generating the request to illuminate the brake light after (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, or (iii) simultaneously generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning. Put differently, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist for ordering performing of each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning with the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. Existence of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) would require a person of ordinary skill in the art to select at least one of said orders (i)-(iii) in order to make the system of Ichikawa modified supra such that each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning is performed with the first electronic processor prior to the braking start time. A lack of criticality is demonstrated by Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims for said order because Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims include, as alternatives, each of order (i) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0006 of the specification, and original claim 1) and order (ii) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0007 of the specification, and original claim 8) is critical, such that neither of orders (i) and (ii) is critical. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “after” includes after by a smallest possible duration, and no aspect of Ichikawa and AAPA discloses or suggests that any of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) [including performing one of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning prior to the other by, for example, a smallest possible duration (so as to be performed virtually simultaneously)] would provide anything other than a reasonable expectation of success in achieving disclosed objectives of early signifying of braking of the vehicle to a driver of a following vehicle and warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (such as a preceding vehicle). In combination, and regardless of a particular order, each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning would merely perform the same function as it does separately. Put differently, ordinary skill and common sense would lead to, at least at times, generating the request to illuminate the brake light after generating the forward collision warning prior, by at least a smallest possible duration to beneficially achieve the disclosed objectives of the early signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle and the warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with the preceding object (such as the preceding vehicle), especially since Ichikawa teaches that generating the request to illuminate the brake light at an earliest possible time before the braking start time when the future braking deceleration is a largest possible amount to beneficially ensure earliest signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C).
With respect to claim 9, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both, generating, with the first electronic processor, a request to illuminate a brake light includes: generating the request to illuminate the brake light when a request to autonomously brake a vehicle is generated by the first electronic processor (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 9, & 11B and as discussed by at least ¶ 0122, 0126-0128 & 0131-0133 of Ichikawa; also, with respect to AAPA, see at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and at least ¶ 0003-0004 of Applicant’s specification).
With respect to claim 10, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the braking event is at least one selected from the group consisting of braking a vehicle in response to a depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle and braking the vehicle in response to receiving a braking request from the first electronic processor (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 8 and 9; because braking a vehicle in response to a depression of a brake pedal of the vehicle and braking the vehicle in response to receiving a braking request from the first electronic processor are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 11, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the method further includes: sending the request to illuminate the brake light to a second electronic processor included in a braking controller, wherein the second electronic processor is configured to control a brake of a vehicle [as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 3, 4 & 8; note: claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not request steps to be performed (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the second electronic processor is configured to control a brake of a vehicle” necessarily requires the claimed method to perform a step or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claim method, such that no part of “wherein the second electronic processor is configured to control a brake of a vehicle” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 12, AAPA modified supra teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the method further includes: in response to receiving the request to illuminate the brake light, confirming or denying, with the second electronic processor, the request to illuminate the brake light in response to receiving the request to illuminate the brake light; and, in response to confirming the request to illuminate the brake light, sending, with the second electronic processor, the request to illuminate the brake light to the brake light of the vehicle [as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11; because confirming the request to illuminate the brake light and denying the request to illuminate the brake light are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives; note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., “see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “sending, with the second electronic processor, the request to illuminate the brake light to the brake light of the vehicle” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed method at times including when the condition “confirming the request to illuminate the brake light” is not met during performing of the claimed method (e.g., when no confirming of the request to illuminate the brake light occurs during performing of the claimed method, such as when “in response to receiving the request to illuminate the brake light, confirming or denying, with the second electronic processor, the request to illuminate the brake light” differently corresponds to denying the request to illuminate the brake light), such that “in response to confirming the request to illuminate the brake light, sending, with the second electronic processor, the request to illuminate the brake light to the brake light of the vehicle” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation].
With respect to claim 13, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the first electronic processor is included in an adaptive driving assistance system controller [no part of “wherein the first electronic processor is included in an adaptive driving assistance system controller” necessarily requires the claimed method to perform a step or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claim method, such that no part of “wherein the first electronic processor is included in an adaptive driving assistance system controller” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 5 and 8].
With respect to claim 14, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the first electronic processor is configured to implement adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking [no part of “wherein the first electronic processor is configured to implement adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking” necessarily requires the claimed method to perform a step or necessarily further defines any previously introduced step of the claim method, such that no part of “wherein the first electronic processor is configured to implement adaptive cruise control and automatic emergency braking” necessarily further limits the claimed method under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 6 and 8].
With respect to claim 15, Ichikawa modified supra teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both includes: generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both prior to the braking event (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 8).
With respect to claim 16, Ichikawa teaches a method for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination [the preamble recitation “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” merely states purpose or intended use of the claimed method which neither necessarily results in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art nor necessarily further distinctly defines any limitation of the claimed method, as deletion of “for providing advance warning of braking through early illumination” would not affect performing of the claimed method (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C in view of at least ¶ 0007-0009], the method comprising: generating a request to autonomously brake a vehicle; and generating, with a first electronic processor (10) at a time when the request to automatically brake the vehicle is generated, a request to illuminate a brake light (9) of the vehicle [as depicted by at least Figs. 1 & 9-14C and as discussed by at least ¶ 0070-0071, 0085, 0097-0099, 0121-0145 & 0183, the electronic control unit (ECU) 10 determines that braking will be performed in the future (e.g., at S12), and generates, in response to determining that braking will be performed in the future, a request to autonomously apply a brake and a request to turn on the brake light 9 of a vehicle V at a light turn-on start time (e.g., via S13-S16), where the light turn-on start time precedes a braking start time by a lead time that is controlled to be longer as a future braking deceleration is larger (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C), and where the request to turn on the brake light 9 overlaps with the request to autonomously apply the brake (e.g., “generating, with a first electronic processor at a time when the request to automatically brake the vehicle is generated, a request to illuminate a brake light of the vehicle”)].
Ichikawa appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes generating, with the first electronic processor, a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both (because generating a forward collision warning and generating a prefill request are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives), such that Ichikawa also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the generating the request to illuminate the brake light occurs after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both.
AAPA [apparent from at least Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings in view of at least ¶ 0001-0004, 0009 & 0031 of Applicant’s specification; e.g., ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification admits that Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings (and the corresponding description thereof) is prior art via at least: “FIG. 1 provides an example illustration of when the illumination of brake lights traditionally occurs in vehicles equipped with an ADAS” (emphasis added)”] teaches an analogous method comprising generating, with a first electronic processor, a forward collision warning in response to determining that a braking event is likely to occur [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0003 of Applicant’s specification, an electronic processor generates a forward collision warning (e.g., at block 105) prior to a braking start time (e.g., via 110 & 120, or via 115 & 120) responsive to determining that braking of an ego vehicle is likely to occur]; and after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both, generating, with the first electronic processor, a request to illuminate a brake light of a vehicle when a request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated [for example, as depicted by the AAPA of Fig. 1 of Applicant’s drawings and as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0003-0004 of Applicant’s specification, subsequent to generating the forward collision warning, the electronic processor generates a request to autonomously brake the ego vehicle (e.g., via blocks 110 & 120) and generates a request to illuminate a brake light of the ego vehicle (e.g., “vehicle”) (e.g., via blocks 110, 120 & 125)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Ichikawa with the teachings of AAPA such that the method further includes generating, with the first electronic processor, a forward collision warning, a prefill request, or both to beneficially warn a driver of a vehicle of the system that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (e.g., a preceding vehicle) at times including when it is determined that a braking event is likely to occur (as discussed by the AAPA of at least ¶ 0001 & 0003 of Applicant’s specification).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the method of Ichikawa in view of the teachings of AAPA such that, in at least one instance, the generating, with the first electronic processor at the time when the request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated, the request to illuminate the brake light occurs after generating the forward collision warning, the prefill request, or both instead of the opposite order (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_E). Performing of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning with the first electronic processor at the time when the request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated necessarily occurs in one of three possible orders: (i) generating the request to illuminate the brake light before (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, (ii) generating the request to illuminate the brake light after (by at least a smallest possible duration) generating the forward collision warning, or (iii) simultaneously generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning. Put differently, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exist for ordering performing of each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning with the first electronic processor at the time when the request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated. Existence of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) would require a person of ordinary skill in the art to select at least one of said orders (i)-(iii) in order to make the system of Ichikawa modified supra such that each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning is performed with the first electronic processor at the time when the request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated. A lack of criticality is demonstrated by Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims for said order because Applicant’s disclosure and originally-filed claims include, as alternatives, each of order (i) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0006 of the specification, and original claim 1) and order (ii) (e.g., see at least ¶ 0007 of the specification, and original claim 8) is critical, such that neither of orders (i) and (ii) is critical. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “after” includes after by a smallest possible duration, and no aspect of Ichikawa and AAPA discloses or suggests that any of the exactly three possible orders (i)-(iii) [including performing one of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning prior to the other by, for example, a smallest possible duration (so as to be performed virtually simultaneously)] would provide anything other than a reasonable expectation of success in achieving disclosed objectives of early signifying of braking of the vehicle to a driver of a following vehicle and warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with a preceding object (such as a preceding vehicle). In combination, and regardless of a particular order, each of generating the request to illuminate the brake light and generating the forward collision warning would merely perform the same function as it does separately. Put differently, ordinary skill and common sense would lead to, at least at times, generating the request to illuminate the brake light after generating the forward collision warning prior, by at least a smallest possible duration to beneficially achieve the disclosed objectives of the early signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle and the warning the driver of the vehicle that the vehicle may collide with the preceding object (such as the preceding vehicle), especially since Ichikawa teaches that generating the request to illuminate the brake light at an earliest possible time at the time when the request to autonomously brake the vehicle is generated when the future braking deceleration is a largest possible amount to beneficially ensure earliest signifying of braking of the vehicle to the driver of the following vehicle (e.g., apparent from at least Figs. 14A-14C).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights