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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the present application filed on December 27, 2024. Claims 9-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP2023/067394, filed June 27, 2023, is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE102022116267.2, filed June 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 27, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because “minimal lateral dynamics” comprises a relative term/phrase leaving the claim unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Specification, “a control unit” comprises a processor, as recited in para 0030.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0300412, to Dingli et al. (hereinafter Dingli).
As per claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Dingli discloses a method for operating a lane-change assistance system of a vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 3 and Abstract, wherein a system of controlling a trajectory of a vehicle, including a lane change, based upon the trajectory of other vehicles is provided), comprising: capturing ambient-field data that describe an environment of the vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 1, and para 0031, wherein an autonomous vehicle 101 is provided including LiDAR sensors 102, radar sensors 104 and cameras 106); detecting further road-users in the environment based on the ambient-field data (e.g. see para 0031, wherein based upon LiDAR, radar and camera data, objects surrounding the vehicle, including other vehicles, are detected); planning a route of a lane-change maneuver from an initial lane into a destination lane, wherein lateral dynamics act on the vehicle during the lane-change maneuver (e.g. see Fig. 2H, and paras 0003 and 0046, wherein a trajectory is selected from a plurality of trajectories, including a lane change; the Office further notes during a lane change the vehicle would encounter various lateral dynamics); determining a traffic density describing a number, a distribution, and/or a motion of the further road-users in the environment (e.g. see para 0037, wherein a traffic density is determined which would include, at a minimum, a number of vehicles); and adapting the planned route of the lane-change maneuver as a function of the determined traffic density to vary the lateral dynamics during the lane-change maneuver (e.g. see para 0037, wherein the vehicle includes an adjusting engine 124 which adjust the trajectory of the vehicle based upon traffic condition or density).
As per claim 10, Dingli discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the planned route of the lane-change maneuver is adapted in such a manner that the lateral dynamics during the lane-change maneuver are increased with increasing traffic density (e.g. see para 0037, wherein the trajectories includes acceleration at different points along the route and wherein the adjusting engine changes the trajectory, based at least on kinematic constraints of other vehicles, which would include the acceleration at different points along the route (i.e. increased lateral dynamics)).
As per claim 11, Dingli discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses wherein, in the course of the determining of the traffic density for the lane-change maneuver, a dimension of a gap between the further road-users in the destination lane is determined, and the route of the planned lane-change maneuver is adapted as a function of the dimension of the gap (e.g. see para 0033, wherein the control of the vehicle is based upon spatial relationships between the vehicle and objects; also see para 0049, wherein the adjusting engine ensures a safest overall distance between the vehicle and trajectory of another vehicle).
As per claim 12, Dingli discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses wherein, in the course of the determining of the traffic density a speed of at least one of the further road-users that is delimiting a gap for the lane-change maneuver is determined, and the route of the planned lane-change maneuver is adapted as a function of the speed (e.g. see para 0039, wherein the adjustment engine predicts trajectories of surrounding objects, such as velocity control of the vehicle, for the purpose of forming a trajectory).
As per claim 16, Dingli discloses a vehicle including the lane-change assistance system of claim 15 (e.g. see Fig. 1 and rejection of claim 15).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0192074, to Abad et al. (hereinafter Abad).
As per claim 13, Dingli discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the route of the planned lane-change maneuver is adapted to obtain minimal lateral dynamics during the lane-change maneuver when no further road-user is present in the destination lane within a predetermined distance from the vehicle. However, Abad teaches when performing a lane change it is desirable to achieve a lowest score possible taking into consideration kinematic comfort and presence of other vehicles (e.g. para 0003, 0114, 0133). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Dingli to include minimizing lateral acceleration when no other vehicles are present for the purpose of maximizing rider’s comfort.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingli, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0409096, to Takahashi et al. (hereinafter Takahashi).
As per claim 14, Dingli discloses the features of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein a check is made as to whether a driver of the vehicle has his/her hands on the steering wheel, and the route of the planned lane-change maneuver is additionally determined as a function of whether the driver has his/her hands on the steering wheel. However, Takahashi teaches during a lane change a hands free sensors detects whether a driver is holding a steering wheel of the vehicle (e.g. see claim 5, [0047], [0086]-[0089]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Dingli to include ensuring a driver’s hands of removed from the steering wheel to ensure that the driver does not interfere with the autonomous lane change.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B