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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “high definition” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high definition” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification describes a high definition map (HD map) at [0113] and features it may include, but fails to provide a standard for when a map is a “high definition” map.
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 1, 10, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mimura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0171064 A1.
As to claim 1, Mimura et al. discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
one or more processors (0093); and
a non-transitory storage device storing a program to be executed by the one or more processors, the program including instructions to:
receive information for determination (0112);
determine, based on the received information, whether an overtaking condition is satisfied, whether yielding is possible, whether there is an oncoming vehicle, or whether a rear vehicle attempts to overtake a vehicle (0112-0113);
control a display device to output content determined based on a determination result for providing a front situation and a vehicle control state to the rear vehicle and an occupant of the vehicle (0116-0117, 0126); and
control a maneuver of the vehicle based on the determination result (0121).
As to claim 10, Mimura et al. discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the display device comprises an interior display within the vehicle and an exterior display facing outside the vehicle (Figure 4, Figure 5A, 0050, 0074); and
the program further includes instructions to control the interior display and the exterior display to output different pieces of text, different images, or different pieces of content (0050, 0074, 0087).
As to claim 13, Mimura et al. discloses a method of controlling a vehicle by a vehicle control device, the method comprising:
receiving information for determination (0112);
determining, based on the received information, whether an overtaking condition is satisfied, whether yielding is possible, whether there is an oncoming vehicle, or whether a rear vehicle attempts to overtake the vehicle (0112-0113);
displaying content determined based on a determination result for providing a front situation and a vehicle control state to the rear vehicle and an occupant of the vehicle on a display device (0116-0117, 0126); and
controlling the vehicle based on the determination result (0121).
As to claim 19, Mimura et al. discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein:
the display device comprises an interior screen and a rear exterior screen (Figure 4, Figure 5A, 0050, 0074); and
displaying the content comprises displaying different pieces of text, different images, or different pieces of content on the interior screen and the rear exterior screen (0050, 0074, 0087).
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.
Claims 2-5, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0171064 A1 in view of Baumgartner et al., U.S. Patent 12,482,353 B1 (2025).
As to claim 2, Mimura et al. discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1. Mimura et al. describes passing a leading vehicle, but does not describe being passed by a trailing vehicle, as claimed.
Baumgartner et al. discloses wherein the overtaking condition comprises a road condition including whether a road on which the vehicle is traveling requires overtaking by the rear vehicle for moving ahead of the vehicle (Column 31, Lines 28-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle control device of claim 1, as disclosed by Mimura et al., with the use of overtaking be a rear vehicle, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the similar maneuver for being passed by a rear vehicle, allowing the vehicle to determine lane changes or passing another vehicle, allowing for safe operation.
As to claim 3, Mimura et al., as modified by Baumgartner et al., discloses the vehicle control device of claim 2.
Baumgartner et al. further discloses wherein the overtaking condition further comprises an approach condition including whether the rear vehicle has maintained a first predefined distance from the vehicle for a predefined time period or whether the rear vehicle has activated an emergency light, a siren, or high beams (Column 23, Lines 22-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle control device of claim 2, as disclosed by Mimura et al., as modified by Baumgartner et al., with the use of an approach condition, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing the detection of an emergency vehicle and performing appropriate operations, allowing for safe operation.
As to claim 4, Mimura et al., as modified by Baumgartner et al., discloses the vehicle control device of claim 3.
Mimura et al. further discloses wherein the program further includes instructions to control the display device to output first content indicating a current speed of the vehicle or a speed limit of the road in response to the determination result indicating that the road condition and the approach condition are satisfied (0058, 0076-0077).
As to claim 5, Mimura et al., as modified by Baumgartner et al. discloses the vehicle control device of claim 3.
Baumgartner et al. discloses wherein the overtaking condition further comprises an intention condition including whether the rear vehicle performs biased traveling or whether the rear vehicle accelerates (Column 9, Lines 32-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle control device of claim 3, as disclosed by Mimura et al., as modified by Baumgartner et al., with the use of an acceleration, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, detecting the closing distance of a rear vehicle and performing appropriate operations, allowing for safe operation.
As to claim 11, Mimura et al. discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1. Mimura et al. does not disclose a rear vehicle, as claimed.
Baumgartner et al. discloses wherein the program further includes instructions to control the vehicle to decelerate in response to the determination result indicating that the rear vehicle attempts to overtake the vehicle (Column 5, Lines 13-25, Column 24, Lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle control device of claim 1, as disclosed by Mimura et al., with the use of a slowing of the vehicle, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, detecting the rear vehicle and slowing down, as required for vehicles being passed by an emergency vehicle, allowing for safe operation.
As to claim 12, Mimura et al. discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the received information comprises a high definition map and a location of the vehicle (0040).
Mimura et al. does not disclose yielding, as claimed.
Baumgartner et al. discloses where the program further includes instructions to:
determine whether yielding is possible based on the high definition map and the location (Column 5, Lines 13-25, Column 29, Lines 1-9); and
control the vehicle to change lanes in response to the determination result indicating that yielding is possible (Column 29, Lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle control device of claim 1, as disclosed by Mimura et al., with the use of a yielding of the vehicle, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, detecting the rear vehicle and moving aside, as required for vehicles being passed by an emergency vehicle, allowing for safe operation.
As to claim 20, Mimura et al. discloses the method of claim 13.
Mimura et al. does not disclose yielding, as claimed.
Baumgartner et al. discloses wherein:
the received information comprises a high definition map and a location of the vehicle (Column 5, Lines 13-25, Column 29, Lines 1-9);
determining whether yielding is possible comprises determining whether yielding is possible based on the high definition map and the location (Column 5, Lines 13-25, Column 29, Lines 1-9); and
controlling the vehicle comprises controlling the vehicle to change lanes in response to the determination result indicating that yielding is possible (Column 29, Lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 13, as disclosed by Mimura et al., with the use of a yielding of the vehicle, as claimed, as disclosed by Baumgartner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, detecting the rear vehicle and moving aside, as required for vehicles being passed by an emergency vehicle, allowing for safe operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses related technology in vehicle displays and referenced applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666