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 1-12 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not concise and appears to be just a copy of the independent claim as currently written. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-4 recites limitations that appear to recite an action step, but instead are referring back to a previous limitation for further expansion. For example, claim 2 recites “further comprising: detecting third party vehicles…”; however, the “detecting third party vehicles” is not a new limitation nor an action step, but intended to refer back to a previous limitation, which makes the claim difficult to read and unclear. The Office recommends separating out and clarifying the previous limitations being expanded on. For example, rewriting the above as “further comprising: wherein the detecting the third party vehicles…”.
Claim 2 recites “detected party vehicles” in the last line, which should be “detected third party vehicles”.
In claim 8, the last “wherein” clause lacks an action or proper tie-in back to the remainder of the claim, which makes the clause difficult to understand. The Office recommends replacing the wherein with “including at least one of”.
Claim 10 appears to have a typographical error in line 4; “modus” should be “mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 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 neighboring driving lane" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "detected third party vehicles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. The Office recommends “the detected third party vehicles”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "third party vehicles" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "follower driving mode" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office recommends “a follower driving mode”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "free driving mode" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office recommends “a free driving mode”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-12 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 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.
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).
As per claim 2, Wu discloses further comprising: 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 further comprising: 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 party vehicles on the neighboring driving lane (Wu; At least paragraph(s) 122 and 129).
As per claim 4, Wu discloses 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 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 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 an 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 a deceleration performed using engine breaking 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 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 an acceleration profile comprises:
determining the acceleration profile with a return phase for returning with the ego vehicle into a driving modus 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, in particular after expiry of a given time period (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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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