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 .
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.
Introduction
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 13-17 have been added since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0180633 to Wu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0163973 to Zhang et al.
As per claim 1, Wu discloses a method for performing pre-boost acceleration prior to overtaking a preceding third party vehicle driving on a road with multiple driving lanes for driving in a forward driving direction with an ego vehicle, wherein the ego vehicle is following the preceding third party vehicle on an ego lane with an initial distance to the ego vehicle (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 121 and 157), the method comprising:
detecting third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 30, 37, and 133);
determining an acceleration profile with an acceleration phase for accelerating the ego vehicle compared to the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane while following the preceding third party vehicle (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 155),
wherein an acceleration of the acceleration phase is determined based on the detection of third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane, a predetermined maximum acceleration value and (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 122-124).
Wu discloses an acceleration of the acceleration phase is based on acceleration limits and passenger comfort, but does not explicitly disclose a maximum change of acceleration.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Zhang (Zhang; At least paragraph(s) 47). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the invention of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Reducing acceleration changing rates improve the comfort of passengers.
Wu further discloses receiving a trigger for performing the pre-boost acceleration prior to overtaking the preceding third party vehicle driving on the ego lane using the neighboring driving lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 121, 146, and 149); and
performing the pre-boost acceleration according to the determined acceleration profile (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 121 and 151),
wherein the acceleration increases to the predetermined maximum acceleration value (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 121 and 150),
wherein, subsequent to increasing to the predetermined maximum acceleration value, the acceleration remains constant at the predetermined maximum acceleration value until overtaking is initiated or aborted (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 164 and 181).
As per claim 2, Wu discloses wherein: detecting third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane comprises
receiving environment sensor information from at least one environment sensor provided at the ego vehicle (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 30, 37, and 133), and
detecting the third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane based on the received environment sensor information from the at least one environment sensor (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 30, 37, and 133).
As per claim 3, Wu discloses wherein: detecting third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane comprises
determining a position and/or a velocity of detected third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 133), and
determining the acceleration of the acceleration phase based on the detection of third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane, a maximum acceleration value and a maximum change of acceleration comprises determining the acceleration based on the detection of the position and/or the velocity of the detected third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 122 and 129).
As per claim 4, Wu discloses wherein: the acceleration is based on acceleration limits and passenger comfort, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining the acceleration of the acceleration phase based on the detection of the third party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane, a maximum acceleration value and a maximum change of acceleration comprises applying a jerk limiter for limiting a change rate of the acceleration of the acceleration profile.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Zhang (Zhang; At least paragraph(s) 47). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the invention of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using a jerk limiter to reduce acceleration changing rates improves the comfort of passengers.
As per claim 5, Wu discloses further comprising selecting a driving mode for driving on the neighboring driving lane as a follower driving mode for following a third party vehicle detected on the neighboring driving lane or selecting a driving mode for driving on the neighboring driving lane as a free driving mode with no third party vehicle detected on the neighboring driving lane, and the acceleration of the acceleration phase is determined under additional consideration of the selected driving mode (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 128, 150, and 152).
As per claim 6, Wu discloses wherein determining the acceleration profile comprises: determining the acceleration profile with a deceleration phase for decreasing the velocity of the ego vehicle compared to the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, wherein the deceleration phase is subsequent to the acceleration phase, wherein a deceleration of the deceleration phase is determined based on the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, a maximum deceleration value and a maximum change of acceleration with at least a minimum deceleration to keep at least a minimum distance to the preceding third party vehicle (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 122 and 193).
As per claim 7, Wu discloses wherein determining the acceleration profile with a deceleration phase comprises:
determining a current distance of the ego vehicle to the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 137); and
determining the deceleration phase based on the determined current distance of the ego vehicle to the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 122, 192, 193, and 221).
As per claim 8, Wu discloses wherein determining the deceleration of the deceleration phase based on the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, a maximum deceleration value and a maximum change of acceleration with at least a minimum deceleration to keep at least a minimum distance to the preceding third party vehicle comprises:
determining the deceleration of the deceleration phase based on passive braking, wherein passive braking comprises at least one of a deceleration performed using engine braking of the ego vehicle, a deceleration based on air resistance and/or rolling resistance of the ego vehicle, and/or a deceleration based on energy recuperation performed with the ego vehicle, or determining the deceleration of the deceleration phase based on active braking, using a conventional braking system of the ego vehicle (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 123 and 235).
As per claim 9, Wu discloses wherein determining the deceleration of the deceleration phase based on the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, a maximum deceleration value and a maximum change of acceleration with at least a minimum deceleration to keep at least a minimum distance to the preceding third party vehicle comprises:
determining the deceleration as a minimum deceleration to reach a minimum distance with a target velocity smaller than the velocity of the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane with a predefined relative velocity offset (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 192, 193, 234, 253, and 254; if the vehicle is within the optimal or critical following distance, the vehicle will use a deceleration and relative velocity offset to increase the distance to the optimal following distance).
As per claim 10, Wu discloses wherein determining the acceleration profile comprises:
determining the acceleration profile with a return phase for returning with the ego vehicle into a driving mode for following the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane with the initial distance between the ego vehicle and the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, wherein the return phase is subsequent to the deceleration phase (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 192, 193, 253, and 254).
As per claim 11, Wu discloses further comprising: performing a continuous recalculation of the acceleration and/or deceleration of the acceleration profile (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 12, Wu discloses a driving support system for use in an ego vehicle for following a preceding third party vehicle, wherein performing adaptive cruise control, when driving on a road with multiple driving lanes for driving in a forward driving direction of the ego vehicle, wherein the driving support system is adapted to perform the method for pre-boost acceleration prior to overtaking a preceding third party vehicle according to 1 (Wu; At least the abstract, paragraph(s) 119 and 120, and the rejection of claim 1 above).
As per claim 13, Wu discloses wherein the acceleration increases to the predetermined maximum acceleration value at a constant rate (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 164).
As per claim 15, Wu discloses wherein the predetermined maximum acceleration value is predetermined to be used as an acceleration during overtaking (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 150; the system controls the vehicle to be at the predetermined acceleration for the lane change).
As per claim 17, Wu discloses wherein the continuous recalculation of the acceleration and/or deceleration of the acceleration profile is performed after expiry of a given time period (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0242435 to Nilsson et al.
As per claim 14, Wu discloses wherein, subsequent to increasing to the predetermined maximum acceleration value, the acceleration remains constant at the predetermined maximum acceleration value until overtaking is initiated (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 150, 180, and 181)
Wu discloses determining the acceleration for the lane change and using constant accelerations (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 129, 156, and 164), which would imply that the vehicle would use a constant acceleration during the overtaking, but does not explicitly disclose and during overtaking.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Nilsson (Nilsson; At least paragraph(s) 21, 22, 71, and 72). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Nilsson into the invention of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using a constant acceleration during maneuvers allows flexibility to determine how best to carry out the maneuver, but also limits the choices to an acceptable number to reduce processing power, similar to that discussed in paragraph(s) 70 and 71 of Nilsson or paragraph(s) 180 and 181 of Wu.
As per claim 16, Wu discloses maintaining safe distances (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 152) and accounting for braking and lane changes of other vehicles using a deceleration phase (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 193, 194, and 204), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the acceleration profile further comprises a deceleration phase, subsequent to the acceleration phase, for decreasing the velocity of the ego vehicle compared to the preceding third party vehicle on the ego lane, wherein the deceleration phase is configured to occur if overtaking is aborted.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Nilsson (Nilsson; At least paragraph(s) 74). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Nilsson into the invention of Wu with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Decelerating the vehicle if overtaking needs to be aborted would avoid collision or a dangerous situation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the specification objections, claim objections, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 13-16, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Wu does not disclose a predetermined acceleration and maintaining the acceleration until overtaking, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu discloses determining an optimal acceleration based on safety, comfort, etc. (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 156) and generating profiles based on the acceleration, which can be a constant acceleration to the transition time (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 180 and 181).
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights