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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-12 were cancelled and claims 13-32 were added prior to examination. Claims 13-32 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 13-32 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 13 and 24: Applicant claims
providing a signal in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to
prevent a collision of the motor vehicle with a vehicle possibly oncoming in the lane.
and
provide a signal in response to determining that the shield cannot prevent a
collision of the motor vehicle with a vehicle possibly oncoming on the lane.
First, the terms inadequate to prevent a collision and cannot prevent a collision are subjective and indefinite in view of Applicant disclosure that provides guidance for adequate shielding and/or shielding that can prevent a collision by example only, such as guardrails, green strips, open areas, object and vehicles. These examples do not provide objective standards and/or objective boundaries for one of ordinary skill to be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the determination if a particular shield can or cannot prevent a collision. See MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. that states “the definiteness requirement is not satisfied by merely offering examples that satisfy the term within the specification.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1261, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Corrective action or clarification is required.
Second, the term with a vehicle possibly oncoming in the lane is rendered indefinite because the use of possibly makes it unclear and indefinite as to if the vehicle is or is not required to be oncoming in the lane.
This issue is exacerbated by the prior limitation in the claim, identifying a lane for an oncoming vehicle, because it is again unclear if a positively detected vehicle in the lane is required by the metes and bounds of the determination, or if the use of for an oncoming vehicle is merely intended use of the identified oncoming lane. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claims 16 and 27: Applicant claims
providing the signal in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to prevent the collision over longer than a predetermined duration
However, the term longer than a predetermined duration (i.e. a time function) to describe physical dimensions of a shield without further context as to what the time represents is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 is directed to:
13. A method for controlling a motor vehicle (motor vehicle is a well-known structure, is generically claimed, and is not actively affected by the abstract idea outlined below, and is therefore considered structure that is immaterial to the claim) comprising:
identifying a lane for an oncoming vehicle; (Applicant disclosure provides for data collection using sensors 210, 215 to determine an oncoming lane 118, and/or based on geographic position of the motor vehicle 105 in reference to map data in the area. This determination is therefore considered to include the combination of generic data gathering steps regarding a lane, that is considered insignificant extra solution activity, as well as generic data processing (i.e. identifying a lane) that is considered an abstract mental process (i.e. identifying an oncoming lane from received data) that is performable by one of ordinary skill mentally.)
determining a shield between the motor vehicle and the lane; (Considered to be generic data processing that is considered an abstract mental process (i.e. identifying an oncoming lane from received data) that is performable by one of ordinary skill mentally.)
and providing a signal (generation of a signal is not considered to be a practical, meaningful application)
in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to prevent a collision of the motor vehicle with a vehicle possibly oncoming in the lane. (Considered to be generic data processing that is considered an abstract mental process (i.e. identifying an oncoming lane from received data) that is performable by one of ordinary skill mentally.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to generic data gathering steps and a mental process of identifying an oncoming vehicle lane, and determining if a shield is adequate/inadequate to prevent a collision of a motor vehicle with said oncoming vehicle. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the data collection and processing of the abstract idea above, the only other factors is that the method is performed onboard a motor vehicle, which is not meaningfully affected by the abstract idea, and the result of said abstract idea is generation of a signal. Claim 13 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 13 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 13 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 13 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 24 is the device performing the abstract method of claim 13, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 13, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 14 and 25 claim controlling, on a basis of the signal, an automatic controller that is configured to control the motor vehicle. Controlling a controller includes metes and bounds of mere software adjustments of data (i.e. data processing) within said controller, and is therefore not considered to be a practical application under step 2A, prong 2.
Dependent claims 15 and 26 claim switching off, or preventing a switching on, of the automatic controller. The optional step of switching off a controller is a well-known computer process, and is therefore not considered a practical application. The optional step of preventing switching on of said controller (i.e. not doing a step) is also not considered to be a practical application under step 2A, prong 2.
Dependent claims 16-23 and 27-32 have been evaluated in a similar manner. These claims appear to merely further limit the abstract mental processes outlined above, and do not overcome the deficiencies outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13-15, 17, 22, 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jonsson et al. (US 20210149395 A1) herein Jonsson.
In regards to Claim 13, Jonsson discloses the following:
13. A method for controlling a motor vehicle (see at least abstract “control system for a vehicle traveling in a first direction on a road segment”) comprising:
identifying a lane for an oncoming vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1a, 1b and [0038] “vehicle 1 is traveling in a first direction 21 on a road segment 22… the controlled-access highway is a dual carriage way where each carriage way having two lanes, and the road segment 22 is a portion of one of the carriage ways.” and [0042] “The road characteristics metric may comprise… a segment of a controlled access highway without any mergers, exists, lane additions, and so forth. Further, the road characteristic metric may comprise a presence of at least one lane (for traffic in the same direction) with identifiable (clear) lane markings.”)
determining a shield between the motor vehicle and the lane; (see at least Fig. 1a, item 23, Fig. 1b, item 24 and [0041] “road safety barrier metric may comprise a required number of road safety barriers 24, 25, a required location of the road safety barrier(s) 24, 25 relative to the road segment 22, and at least one required type of road safety barriers 24, 25. For example, in some embodiments the road safety barrier metric may dictate that there should be one concrete barrier 24, 25 on each side of the road segment 22 in the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1. In some embodiments, the road safety barrier metric may be that there is a road safety barrier 24 (arbitrary type) separating the two carriage ways. A road safety barrier are in the present context to be understood as traffic barriers (also known as guardrails, or crash barriers) which are designed to keep vehicles within their roadway and prevent them from colliding”)
and providing a signal in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to
prevent a collision of the motor vehicle with a vehicle possibly oncoming in the lane. (see at least Fig. 1a and [0046] “In FIG. 1a the ego-vehicle 1 is… traveling on a controlled access highway… the controlled access highway has no road safety barriers. Thus, the road characteristics metric is fulfilled, but the road safety barrier metric is not fulfilled, wherefore the ODD [Operational design domain, see [0039]] for the driver support function is not fulfilled. Accordingly… vehicle is configured to control the availability 27 of the driver support function such that it is unavailable 28 for an occupant of the ego-vehicle. In other words, the occupant of the vehicle 1 cannot activate the highway pilot feature in the scenario illustrated in FIG. 1a.”)
In regards to Claim 14, Jonsson discloses the following:
14. The method according to claim 13, comprising: controlling, on a basis of the signal, an automatic controller (see at least Fig. 4 and [0066] “control system 10 for a vehicle 1. The vehicle 1 has a driver support function for autonomously manoeuvring the vehicle when traveling on a road segment. In some embodiments the driver support function is an ADS function having an automation level 3 or higher” and [0068] “control device 10 comprises one or more processors 11, a memory 12, a sensor interface 13 and a communication interface 14. The processor(s) 11 may also be referred to as a control circuit 11 or control circuitry 11”) that is configured to control the motor vehicle. (see at least [0043] “the driver support function is an ADS feature in the form of a highway pilot having an automation level 3 or higher according to SAE J3016 levels of driving automation.” and [0046] “In other words, the occupant of the vehicle 1 cannot activate the highway pilot feature in the scenario illustrated in FIG. 1a.”)
In regards to Claim 15, Jonsson discloses the following:
15. The method according to claim 14, comprising: switching off, or preventing a switching on, of the automatic controller. (see at least Fig. 1a and [0046] “In other words, the occupant of the vehicle 1 cannot activate the highway pilot feature in the scenario illustrated in FIG. 1a.”)
In regards to claim 17: Jonsson discloses the following:
17. The method according to claim 13, comprising: determining a geometric region with respect to the motor vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1b and [0041] “road safety barrier metric may comprise a required number of road safety barriers 24, 25, a required location of the road safety barrier(s) 24, 25 relative to the road segment 22, and at least one required type of road safety barriers 24, 25. For example, in some embodiments the road safety barrier metric may dictate that there should be one concrete barrier 24, 25 on each side of the road segment 22”) and determining an inadequate shield in response to determining that the shield fills the geometric region by less than a predetermined amount. (see at least [0043] “he required number of road safety barriers 24, 25 is two, the required location of the road safety barriers 24, 25 is one road safety barrier 24, 25 on each side of the road segment 22 extending along the first direction 21, and the required type is one of a flexible road safety barrier, rigid road safety barrier, or semi rigid road safety barrier.”)
In regards to Claim 22, Jonsson discloses the following:
22. The method according to claim 13, wherein the shield comprises a structure. (see at least [0041] “road safety barrier metric may comprise a required number of road safety barriers 24, 25, a required location of the road safety barrier(s) 24, 25 relative to the road segment 22, and at least one required type of road safety barriers 24, 25. For example, in some embodiments the road safety barrier metric may dictate that there should be one concrete barrier 24, 25 on each side of the road segment 22 in the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1. In some embodiments, the road safety barrier metric may be that there is a road safety barrier 24 (arbitrary type) separating the two carriage ways. A road safety barrier are in the present context to be understood as traffic barriers (also known as guardrails, or crash barriers) which are designed to keep vehicles within their roadway and prevent them from colliding”)
In regards to Claims 24-26 and 28: Claims 24-26 and 28 are the devices performing the methods of claims 13-15 and 17, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 13-15 and 17, above.
Claims 13-15, 17-18, 22-23, 24-26 and 28-29 are rejected (or further rejected) under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nayak et al. (US 20200167575 A1) herein Nayak.
In regards to Claim 13, Nayak discloses the following:
13. A method for controlling a motor vehicle (see at least [0070] “process 520 for controlling an autonomous vehicle using prediction of presence or absence of physical dividers”) comprising:
identifying a lane for an oncoming vehicle; (see at least Fig. 1, vehicles 103, 105, 107a and [0033] “road 101 may support bi-directional traffic with a first vehicle 103 traveling in one direction and a second vehicle 105 traveling in the opposite direction” and [0050] “retrieved map data can include, but is not limited to, a functional class, a speed limit, a presence of a road sign (e.g., school zone sign), a bi-directionality of the road, a number of lanes, a speed category, a distance to a nearby point of interest, or a combination thereof.”)
determining a shield between the motor vehicle and the lane; (see at least Fig. 1, item 107a, [0033] “In this example, a first physical divider 107a is present between the vehicle travel lanes of the road 101” and [0085] “vehicle system 901 including trained machine learning model 115 (e.g., trained according to the embodiments described herein) then processes the map and sensor data to make a physical divider prediction.”)
and providing a signal in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to
prevent a collision of the motor vehicle with a vehicle possibly oncoming in the lane. (see at least [0037] “the physical divider platform 113 and/or the physical divider module 119 can then use the trained machine learning model 115 to calculate the probability of a physical divider 107 (i.e., a structural separator) being on the road segment of interest based on the map data and/or vehicle sensor information associated with the segment of interest. If the calculated probability is above a threshold value, then the physical divider platform 113 can output data indicating a predicted presence of the physical divider 107 on the segment. If the calculated probability is below the threshold value, then the physical divider platform 113 can output data indicating a predicted absence of the physical divider 107 on the segment.” and [0085] “the machine learning model 115 predicts that there is no physical divider on the segment. This prediction then triggers the vehicle system 901 to present a notification or an alert message 905 to indicate that that the vehicle is approaching an area with no physical divider and instructs the driver to take manual control for the segment.”)
In regards to Claim 14, Nayak discloses the following:
14. The method according to claim 13, comprising: controlling, on a basis of the signal, an automatic controller that is configured to control the motor vehicle. (see at least [0085] “the machine learning model 115 predicts that there is no physical divider on the segment. This prediction then triggers the vehicle system 901 to present a notification or an alert message 905 to indicate that that the vehicle is approaching an area with no physical divider and instructs the driver to take manual control for the segment.”)
In regards to Claim 15, Nayak discloses the following:
15. The method according to claim 14, comprising: switching off, or preventing a switching on, of the automatic controller. (see at least [0085] “In addition, the vehicle system 901 can deactivate the autonomous driving mode (e.g., following a period of time after presenting a notification such as the alert message 905).”)
In regards to claim 17, Nayak discloses the following:
17. The method according to claim 13, comprising: determining a geometric region with respect to the motor vehicle; (see at least [0040] “the physical divider platform 113 segments each of road represented in a map database (e.g., the geographic database 111) into segments of a predetermined length (e.g., 5-meter segments; however, any other segment size may be supported by embodiments of the invention described herein). Then, the physical divider platform 113 can make physical divider predictions for each segment of the road.” and [0045] “the raw sensor data can include… a physical divider distance distribution, a height of the physical divider 107, a vehicle speed, a physical divider type (e.g., see examples of FIG. 3), a physical divider sample point count, or a combination thereof.”) and determining an inadequate shield in response to determining that the shield fills the geometric region by less than a predetermined amount. (see at least [0037] “physical divider platform 113 and/or the physical divider module 119 can then use the trained machine learning model 115 to calculate the probability of a physical divider 107 being on the road segment of interest based on the map data and/or vehicle sensor information. If the calculated probability is above a threshold value, then the physical divider platform 113 can output data indicating a predicted presence of the physical divider 107 on the segment. If the calculated probability is below the threshold value, then the physical divider platform 113 can output data indicating a predicted absence of the physical divider 107 on the segment.” and [0047] “the various sensed characteristics of the detected physical divider 107 can be compared (e.g., location from the vehicle 601, detected height of the physical divider 107, etc.) for consistency (e.g., by calculating a percent difference or equivalent).”
In regards to claim 18, Nayak discloses the following:
18. (New) The method according to claim 17, comprising: determining the geometric region in dependence on a current driving speed of the motor vehicle. (see at least [0045] “the raw sensor data can include… a physical divider distance distribution, a height of the physical divider 107, a vehicle speed, a physical divider type (e.g., see examples of FIG. 3), a physical divider sample point count, or a combination thereof.” and [0085] “map data (e.g., functional class, speed category, etc.) about the road segment is also determined.”)
In regards to Claim 22, Nayak discloses the following:
22. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein the shield comprises a structure. (see at least [0041] “road safety barrier metric may comprise a required number of road safety barriers 24, 25, a required location of the road safety barrier(s) 24, 25 relative to the road segment 22, and at least one required type of road safety barriers 24, 25. For example, in some embodiments the road safety barrier metric may dictate that there should be one concrete barrier 24, 25 on each side of the road segment 22 in the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1. In some embodiments, the road safety barrier metric may be that there is a road safety barrier 24 (arbitrary type) separating the two carriage ways. A road safety barrier are in the present context to be understood as traffic barriers (also known as guardrails, or crash barriers) which are designed to keep vehicles within their roadway and prevent them from colliding”)
In regards to Claim 23, Nayak discloses the following:
23. (New) The method according to claim 13, wherein the shield comprises a free area of a predetermined size. (see at least [0034] “The physical divider 107 can be, for instance, a physical barrier, or provide enough clearance between different lanes or traffic flow directions so that potential cross-over traffic is minimized or prevented…. a physical divider can include, but is not limited to, (1) a solid wall 201 (e.g., a concrete barrier), (2) a median 203 that is sufficiently wide to separate reduce potential crossover traffic to a threshold probability”)
In regards to 24-26 and 28-29: Claims 24-26 and 28-29 are the devices performing the methods of claims 13-15 and 17-18, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 13-15 and 17-18, above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson as applied, (or, in the alternative, Nayak as applied,) in further view of Heitzmann et al. (US 20210276563 A1) herein Heitzmann.
In regards to claim 16: Jonsson and Nayak are silent, but Heitzmann teaches the following:
16. (New) The method according to claim 13, comprising: providing the signal in response to the shield being determined to be inadequate to prevent the collision over longer than a predetermined duration and/or longer than a predetermined distance. (see at least [0012] “confidence index, recalculated in real time, is compared in a step 50 to a confidence threshold I.sub.th, such that it is possible to authorize the activation of the automatic driving mode (step 60) when the confidence index I.sub.CONF is above the confidence threshold I.sub.th for at least a predefined time corresponding to a minimum rolling distance D.sub.th travelled by the motor vehicle 1”) and [0055] “confidence index I′.sub.CONF calculated in the step 80 can possibly, in a step 90, be reduced by a value taking into account the distance travelled by the motor vehicle 1 during which the confidence index I.sub.CONF is low.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Heitzmann with the invention of Jonsson or Nayak, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing vehicles to move in an automated way over suitable road sections, such as fast roads with separated carriageways, and prompt the driver to retake control of his or her vehicle in the case where it would for example be exiting a suitable road section. (Heitzmann, [0004])
In regards to Claim 27: Claims 27 is the device performing the method of claims 16, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 16, above.
Claims 19-20 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson, as applied, (or, in the alternative, Nayak, as applied,) in further view of Moshchuk et al. (US 20140032049 A1) herein Moshchuk.
In regards to claim 19, Moshchuk teaches the following:
19. The method according to claim 17, comprising: determining the geometric region in dependence on a steering capacity of the motor vehicle. (see at least [0025] “remote sensing device may obtain data allowing system 12 to determine or measure the relative location of the vehicle with respect to road features, for example… median barrier(s)”, [0026] “vehicle dynamics measurement device(s) may include one or more steering angle sensor(s) 24 (e.g., connected to steering wheel 16 and/or another component of the steering system).”, [0034] “An optimal collision avoidance path is determined based on a host vehicle position relative to the forward driven vehicle, vehicle speeds, and steering wheel angle adjustments.”, [0043] “steering assist threshold Th.sub.SAA represents a time frame which is the last opportunity for the host vehicle to complete a collision avoidance maneuver while the vehicle is exhibiting less than a predefined level of lateral acceleration” and “steering actuator delay”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Moshchuk with the invention of Jonsson or Nayak, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of avoiding a collision or mitigating the severity of a collision using autonomous control. (Moshchuk, [0002])
In regards to claim 20, Moshchuk teaches the following:
20. The method according to claim 17, comprising: determining the geometric region in such a way that it contains locations to which the motor vehicle can be controlled within a predetermined time. (see at least [0025] “remote sensing device may obtain data allowing system 12 to determine or measure the relative location of the vehicle with respect to road features, for example… median barrier(s)”, [0026] “vehicle dynamics measurement device(s) may include one or more steering angle sensor(s) 24 (e.g., connected to steering wheel 16 and/or another component of the steering system).”, [0034] “An optimal collision avoidance path is determined based on a host vehicle position relative to the forward driven vehicle, vehicle speeds, and steering wheel angle adjustments.”, [0043] “steering assist threshold Th.sub.SAA represents a time frame which is the last opportunity for the host vehicle to complete a collision avoidance maneuver while the vehicle is exhibiting less than a predefined level of lateral acceleration” and “steering actuator delay”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Moshchuk with the invention of Jonsson or Nayak, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of avoiding a collision or mitigating the severity of a collision using autonomous control. (Moshchuk, [0002])
In regards to Claims 30-31: Claims 30-31 are the devices performing the methods of claims 19-20, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 19-20, above.
Claims 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonsson, as applied, (or, in the alternative, Nayak, as applied,) in further view of Yarmohamadi et al. (US 20210213953 A1) herein Yarmohamadi.
In regards to claim 21, Yarmohamadi teaches the following:
21. The method according to claim 13, wherein the shield comprises another vehicle that travels between the motor vehicle and the lane in a same direction as the motor vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1a and [0044] “ego vehicle 1”, ““further vehicle 2b”, “further vehicle 2b” and “non-traversable separator 6”, see also [0075] “Turning back to FIG. 1a… This may be established e.g. by identifying that the only lane between the middle lane 3c that the ego vehicle 1 is travelling and the opposing lane 3a, is for traffic in the same direction 4 as the ego vehicle 1 is travelling in. This may in turn be established by identifying the first other vehicle 2b from sensor data and that it is travelling in the same direction 4 as the ego vehicle 1. The non-traversable separator 6 is identified as being located between the ego vehicle 1 and any oncoming traffic.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Yarmohamadi with the invention of Jonsson or Nayak, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing for a lane change assist function for use in complex traffic situations and/or when the risk of severe accidents associated with the road type and/or the particular situation is high. (Yarmohamadi, [0004])
In regards to Claim 32: Claims 32 is the device performing the method of claims 21, and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 21, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
June 24, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights