DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 4, 7, and 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 12 recite the limitation "the identification section". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn et al. (US 20210197816 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Horn teaches:
A controller (20) for a rider-assistance system (10) that assists with driving by a rider, the controller configured to:
execute a driving assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider,
(Horn – [0133] “The various inputs may be provided to a selected processing system, such as the position processor or the cruise control system which may include or be incorporated into the ECU 272. As discussed further herein, the ECU 272 may include processors to execute selected instructions for automatically controlling cruise control in the motorcycle 10, providing feedback to the rider 200 as discussed above, providing signals to other drivers, as also discussed above, or the like.”)
when group travel in which a group made up of plural motorcycles travels in plural vehicle lines is made, identify in a first identification processing whether a vehicle line identification target vehicle (1), which is the motorcycle constituting the group, is positioned in a first vehicle line, to which a vehicle line identification reference vehicle (2) as the motorcycle constituting the group belongs, or is positioned in a second vehicle line, to which the vehicle line identification reference vehicle (2) does not belong, based on surrounding environment information of the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1), wherein
(Horn – [0129] “The motorcycles generally traveling in the same direction and/or lane as the motorcycle 10 that are sensed or identified by the system, such as one or more radar systems as discussed herein, may be referred to as targeted or identified forward motorcycles.” [0131] “During the riding of the motorcycle 10, the motorcycle 10 may be ridden in a single lane, such as the first lane 870 in a staggered formation. In a staggered formation the motorcycle 10 may be traveling along a path 900 with the third motorcycle directly in the path 900, but a selected distance 901 therefrom. In the staggered formation, the second motorcycle 880 is laterally offset, such as to the right, of the motorcycle 10, but in the same lane. Further, the second motorcycle 880 may travel along a path 910 with the third motorcycle 884 and be laterally offset therefrom and the fourth motorcycle 888 directly in front of the second motorcycle 880 along the path 910 all within the same lane.”)
the execution section (22) controller executes the driving assistance operation based on an identification result by the identification section (23).
(Horn – [0137] “In various embodiments, the rider 200 may operate a cruise control on the motorcycle 10. As discussed above, the cruise control may operate to selectively maintain a speed of the motorcycle 10 that is selected by the rider 200. The cruise control may be set with one or more switches 905 (FIG. 2), but may be augmented or changed with manual and/or automatic input to adjust a speed of the motorcycle 10 to maintain a set distance, such as the distance 960, from the second motorcycle 880 and/or the third distance 901 from the third motorcycle 884.” [0138] “In various embodiments, therefore, the various sensors of the motorcycle 10 may be operated to inform the cruise control or an automatic cruise control of the motorcycle 10 with feedback and/or automatic motorcycle operations regarding obstructions.”)
Regarding claim 2,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Horn further teaches:
wherein in addition to the first identification processing, controller executes second identification processing to identify whether the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned between the first vehicle line and the second vehicle line.
(Horn – [0134] “In the staggered formation, however, the second motorcycle 880 is a selected distance 960 forward or in front of the first motorcycle 10. If more than two motorcycles, such as the third motorcycle 884, is in a staggered formation the third motorcycle is also offset a lateral distance 964, which may be the same distance 950. The third motorcycle 884 may be a distance 968 forward of the second motorcycle 880 and the distance 901 forward of the first motorcycle 10 along the path 900.”)
Regarding claim 3,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Horn further teaches:
wherein the controller executes the first identification processing and the second identification processing based on a lateral distance (D) between the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) and the vehicle line identification reference vehicle (2).
(Horn – [0131] “During the riding of the motorcycle 10, the motorcycle 10 may be ridden in a single lane, such as the first lane 870 in a staggered formation. In a staggered formation the motorcycle 10 may be traveling along a path 900 with the third motorcycle directly in the path 900, but a selected distance 901 therefrom. In the staggered formation, the second motorcycle 880 is laterally offset, such as to the right, of the motorcycle 10, but in the same lane. Further, the second motorcycle 880 may travel along a path 910 with the third motorcycle 884 and be laterally offset therefrom and the fourth motorcycle 888 directly in front of the second motorcycle 880 along the path 910 all within the same lane.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Horn further teaches:
wherein the identification section (23) determines the lateral distance (D) based on shape information of a travel road.
(Horn – [0139] “Additionally, even if in an initial staggered riding formation, as illustrated in FIG. 14, a plurality of motorcycles, such as the first motorcycle 10, the second motorcycle 880, and the third motorcycle 884 may move or form a substantially single file configuration when encountering a curve, to form a selected single riding lane or line 870c as illustrated in FIG. 15… Similarly, the third motorcycle 884 may be a distance 1004 in front of or forward of the second motorcycle 880. In the situation where a plurality of motorcycles are traveling around the curve 870c, therefore, the plurality of motorcycles may be in or move to a substantially single path until a straight portion of the first lane 870 is encountered again and the stagger formation is reformed. Accordingly, in a changing situation where the second motorcycle 880 moves from an offset position, such as offset by the distance 950 to an offset that is substantially zero, relative to the first motorcycle 10, the distance 960 of the first motorcycle 10 from the second motorcycle 880 may change to the distance 1000.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Horn further teaches:
wherein the vehicle line identification target vehicle is an own vehicle (1) that is mounted with the controller (20).
(Horn – [0133] “For example, the radar assembly 350 may identify the second motorcycle 880, the third motorcycle 884, the fifth motorcycle 890, and the large vehicle 894. In addition thereto, or alternatively thereto, the camera sensor 800 may identify the lane markers 860 and 864 to identify the lane 870 in which the motorcycle 10 is traveling. The various inputs may be provided to a selected processing system, such as the position processor or the cruise control system which may include or be incorporated into the ECU 272. As discussed further herein, the ECU 272 may include processors to execute selected instructions for automatically controlling cruise control in the motorcycle 10, providing feedback to the rider 200 as discussed above, providing signals to other drivers, as also discussed above, or the like.”)
Regarding claim 10,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Horn further teaches:
wherein the rider is a rider of the own vehicle (1),
(Horn – [0048] “With continuing reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the motorcycle 10 may include a rider facing or rear facing portion of the fairing assembly 20.”)
the driving assistance operation includes vehicle control operation to control behavior of the own vehicle (1), and
(Horn – [0140] “Accordingly, the process 1100 may be operated or executed by a processor in the ECU 272, or other appropriate processor system. Generally, the ECU 272 may be in communication with a cruise control system to operate the engine 40 at a selected speed. Further, the ADC may be in communication with one or more controllers for the braking systems 72. In various embodiments, however, the process 1100 may be incorporated into instructions and/or a logic that is executed by the processor system in the ECU 272 or other appropriate processor system.”)
the controller executes the vehicle control operation based on an identification result by the first identification processing.
(Horn – [0137] “In various embodiments, the rider 200 may operate a cruise control on the motorcycle 10. As discussed above, the cruise control may operate to selectively maintain a speed of the motorcycle 10 that is selected by the rider 200. The cruise control may be set with one or more switches 905 (FIG. 2), but may be augmented or changed with manual and/or automatic input to adjust a speed of the motorcycle 10 to maintain a set distance, such as the distance 960, from the second motorcycle 880 and/or the third distance 901 from the third motorcycle 884.” [0138] “In various embodiments, therefore, the various sensors of the motorcycle 10 may be operated to inform the cruise control or an automatic cruise control of the motorcycle 10 with feedback and/or automatic motorcycle operations regarding obstructions.”)
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (US 20210197816 A1) in view of Honda et al. (US 20200283025 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Horn does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Honda teaches:
wherein the lateral distance (D) is a distance that is predicted in the future.
(Honda – [0050] “Next, the vehicle control apparatus will determine, based on the acquired information, whether the fact that the preceding vehicle has moved beyond a predetermined range (for example, a range defined by the lane on which the self-vehicle is traveling) can be detected or whether such a movement can be predicted (step S402). For example, the vehicle control apparatus predicts whether the preceding vehicle will move beyond a boundary based on a determination as to whether the preceding vehicle is straddling the boundary of a predetermined region, such as a lane boundary line or the like, and on the relationship between the amount of lateral movement, the speed of lateral movement, or the distance from the preceding vehicle to the boundary of the predetermined region described above and a corresponding threshold.”)
Honda is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle following a reference vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horn and Honda to include predicting a lateral distance to reduce the sense of incongruity given to the user in an automated driving vehicle that is performing a preceding vehicle following control operation (Honda, para. [0006]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (US 20210197816 A1) in view of Ueda (US 20190227560 A1).
Regarding claim 6,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Horn does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Ueda teaches:
wherein controller:
identifies in the first identification processing that the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned in one of the first vehicle line and the second vehicle line in the case where the lateral distance (D) is shorter than a first reference distance (D1) or is longer than a second reference distance (D2), which is longer than the first reference distance (D1); and
(Ueda – [0029] “As a particular example, FIG. 3 illustrates a case in which traveling tracks PA.sub.i to PA.sub.(i-9) of a vehicle 101 and traveling tracks PB.sub.i to PB.sub.(i-7) of another vehicle 102 are calculated by the traveling track calculation unit 12. The traveling track estimation circuit 14 calculates a distance DA in the vehicle width direction of the host vehicle 100 between the center of gravity P0 of the host vehicle 100 and, for example, an approximate curve of the traveling tracks PA.sub.i to PA.sub.(i-9) of the vehicle 101. In this example, the distance DA is less than the predetermined threshold (for example, 2.0 meters), and the vehicle 101 is thus determined to be traveling on the same lane L1… In this example, the distance DB is the predetermined threshold (for example, 2.0 meters) or greater, and the other vehicle 102 is thus determined not to be traveling on the same lane L1 (determined to be traveling on the different lane L2).”)
identifies in the second identification processing that the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned between the first vehicle line and the second vehicle line in the case where the lateral distance (D) is longer than the first reference distance (D1) and is shorter than the second reference distance (D2).
(Ueda – [0033] “When the other vehicle 102 is located forward of the preceding vehicle 101, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the estimation interval I1 of the preceding vehicle 101 is also used for estimating the traveling tracks PB.sub.i to PB.sub.(i-12) of the other vehicle 102. The traveling track estimation circuit 14 causes the traveling tracks PB.sub.(i-4) to PB.sub.(i-11) of the other vehicle 102 within the estimation interval I1 to approximate to a straight line, and divides the approximate interval into sections when a distance between the approximate straight line and the respective traveling tracks PB.sub.(i-4) to PB.sub.(i-11) is the predetermined threshold (for example, 0.2 meters) or greater so that the distance between the approximate straight line and the respective traveling tracks PB.sub.(i-4) to PB.sub.(i-11) results in less than the predetermined threshold (for example, 0.2 meters).”)
Ueda is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle based on the surrounding vehicles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horn and Ueda to include determining which line a vehicle is in based on a threshold distance in order to cause a host vehicle to continuously follow traveling tracks of other vehicles including a preceding vehicle so as to travel stably (Ueda, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Horn and Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Ueda further teaches:
wherein in the first identification processing, the identification section (23):
identifies that the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned in the first vehicle line in the case where the lateral distance (D) is shorter than the first reference distance (D1); and
identifies that the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned in the second vehicle line in the case where the lateral distance (D) is longer than the second reference distance (D2).
(Ueda – [0028] “For example, the traveling track estimation circuit 14 calculates a distance between the host vehicle and traveling tracks of another vehicle calculated by the traveling track calculation unit 12, and determines that the other vehicle is traveling on the same lane as the host vehicle when the calculated distance is less than a predetermined threshold (for example, 2.0 meters). The traveling track estimation circuit 14 determines that the other vehicle is not traveling on the same lane as the host vehicle (determines that the other vehicle is traveling on the different lane from the host vehicle) when the calculated distance is the predetermined threshold (for example, 2.0 meters) or greater.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horn and Ueda to include determining which line a vehicle is in based on a threshold distance in order to cause a host vehicle to continuously follow traveling tracks of other vehicles including a preceding vehicle so as to travel stably (Ueda, para. [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (US 20210197816 A1) in view of Yu (US 11801838 B2).
Regarding claim 8,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Horn does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Yu teaches:
wherein in the first identification processing, when the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) remains positioned in one vehicle line of the first vehicle line and the second vehicle line at least for a reference time, the controller identifies that the vehicle line identification target vehicle (1) is positioned in the one vehicle line.
(Yu – [Col. 2 lines 16-39] “… the first condition is a condition in which a time period when it is assumed that the first other vehicle is traveling at a specific position at which the vehicle is traveling in the traveling direction is greater than a first threshold value, the time period is obtained by subtracting a time period until the first other vehicle reaches a reference position from a current location from a time period until the first other vehicle reaches the reference position…”)
Yu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horn with Yu to include monitoring the time a vehicle spends in different positions in order to perform vehicle controls when relationships between other vehicles satisfy conditions, making it possible to maintain a speed which is desired by the occupant of the vehicle without causing an occupant of the vehicle to feel uncomfortable (Yu, Col. 4 lines 24-31).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn et al. (US 20210197816 A1) in view of Uchida (US 20190139329 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
Horn teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Horn further teaches:
wherein the vehicle line identification target vehicle is an own vehicle (1) that is mounted with the controller (20),
(Horn – [0133] “For example, the radar assembly 350 may identify the second motorcycle 880, the third motorcycle 884, the fifth motorcycle 890, and the large vehicle 894. In addition thereto, or alternatively thereto, the camera sensor 800 may identify the lane markers 860 and 864 to identify the lane 870 in which the motorcycle 10 is traveling. The various inputs may be provided to a selected processing system, such as the position processor or the cruise control system which may include or be incorporated into the ECU 272. As discussed further herein, the ECU 272 may include processors to execute selected instructions for automatically controlling cruise control in the motorcycle 10, providing feedback to the rider 200 as discussed above, providing signals to other drivers, as also discussed above, or the like.”)
the rider is a rider of the own vehicle (1),
(Horn – [0048] “With continuing reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the motorcycle 10 may include a rider facing or rear facing portion of the fairing assembly 20.”)
the driving assistance operation includes vehicle control operation to control behavior of the own vehicle (1) and notification operation to notify the rider, and
(Horn – [0009] “The two-wheeled vehicle, as disclosed herein, may provide automatic feedback and/or notifications to the rider and external operators regarding the presence of the two-wheeled vehicle and/or position and speed of external vehicles.” [0140] “Accordingly, the process 1100 may be operated or executed by a processor in the ECU 272, or other appropriate processor system. Generally, the ECU 272 may be in communication with a cruise control system to operate the engine 40 at a selected speed. Further, the ADC may be in communication with one or more controllers for the braking systems 72. In various embodiments, however, the process 1100 may be incorporated into instructions and/or a logic that is executed by the processor system in the ECU 272 or other appropriate processor system.”)
the controller:
executes the vehicle control operation based on an identification result by the first identification processing; and
(Horn – [0137] “In various embodiments, the rider 200 may operate a cruise control on the motorcycle 10. As discussed above, the cruise control may operate to selectively maintain a speed of the motorcycle 10 that is selected by the rider 200. The cruise control may be set with one or more switches 905 (FIG. 2), but may be augmented or changed with manual and/or automatic input to adjust a speed of the motorcycle 10 to maintain a set distance, such as the distance 960, from the second motorcycle 880 and/or the third distance 901 from the third motorcycle 884.” [0138] “In various embodiments, therefore, the various sensors of the motorcycle 10 may be operated to inform the cruise control or an automatic cruise control of the motorcycle 10 with feedback and/or automatic motorcycle operations regarding obstructions.”)
Horn does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Uchida teaches:
executes the notification operation based on an identification result by the second identification processing.
(Uchida – [0047] “According to another aspect of the present teaching, the vehicle-to-vehicle communication apparatus is arranged such that the output controller may display, on a display unit, the positional relation between the host vehicle and the client vehicle based on the location information of the host vehicle and the location information of the client vehicle.”)
Uchida is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring travel groups of motorcycles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Horn and Uchida to notify the driver of the positional relationship between the host and client vehicles in order to allow the vehicles to perform smooth cooperative driving (Uchida, para. [0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Knitt (US 20190248367 A1) discloses determine the presence of a vehicle on one side of a direct path of travel of the motorcycle based on data received from a transceiver, the vehicle within a field of view of the transceiver. The electronic controller locks the motorcycle with the vehicle and dynamically controls the speed of the motorcycle based on an output of a kinematic controller, wherein the kinematic controller configured to receive an input including at least one of an item selected from the group consisting of distance of the motorcycle to the vehicle, velocity of the vehicle, velocity of the motorcycle, a cruise set speed associated with the motorcycle, a desired separation distance between the motorcycle and the vehicle, and a desired separation time between the motorcycle and the vehicle.
Kurata (US 20170270801 A1) discloses motorcycles in a group action share group information to which each of motorcycles belongs and the motorcycles share information with a surrounding four-wheeled vehicle via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668