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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims overcome the currently rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). These arguments are moot, however, as a new grounds of rejection has been identified in a renewed search necessitated by said amendments.
The applicant further argues that Kojo (US 2017/0361841) does not disclose “detecting a trajectory of the front vehicle when the presence of the first predetermined driving situation”. This argument is not persuasive as Kojo in Paragraph [0036] discloses a vehicle automatically determining whether the vehicle can “turn to the right following the preceding vehicle P1 according to the behavior of the preceding vehicle”. This directly represents “detecting a trajectory” of a preceding vehicle and is not based on an inherency argument as the “behavior of the preceding vehicle” is the trajectory of the preceding vehicle as it is representative of the movement profile of the preceding vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 13-15, 18, 20-22, 24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojo (US 2017/0361841) in view of Russel (US 2020/0125106). These references are analogous as they are both related to vehicle control systems.
As per Claim 11:
Kojo discloses all of the following limitations:
“A method for controlling lateral control of a motor vehicle comprising: establishing a presence of a first predetermined driving situation in which the motor vehicle is in an idle position and a distance between the motor vehicle and a front vehicle increases”
Kojo Paragraph [0034] discloses a situation in which an instant vehicle is idle and is behind a preceding vehicle and the distance between them increases as the preceding vehicle sets off.
“detecting a trajectory of the front vehicle when the presence of the first predetermined driving situation is established”
Kojo Paragraph [0036] discloses a following control protocol that causes a subject vehicle to follow the path of a preceding vehicle P1 according to the behavior of said vehicle P1 thereby necessitating an identification of the trajectory of the P1.
“detecting a presence of a second predetermined driving situation, which chronologically follows the first predetermined driving situation and in which the motor vehicle drives off from the idle position”
Kojo Paragraph [0034] discloses an instant vehicle M following after a preceding vehicle P1.
Kojo does not disclose the following limitations that Russell teaches.
“and controlling the lateral control of the motor vehicle based on the detected trajectory when the presence of the second predetermined driving situation is established, wherein controlling the lateral control comprises an active steering intervention in a steering system of the motor vehicle”
Russell Paragraph [0027] teaches autonomously controlling, including lateral steering interventions, a vehicle’s trajectory to follow the trajectory of a preceding vehicle through an intersection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kojo with the steering interventions taught by Russell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more user-friendly by automating control of a vehicle through a larger variety of situations.
With regards to Claim 13, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein controlling the lateral control of the motor vehicle based on the detected trajectory takes place so that the motor vehicle follows the detected trajectory.”
Kojo Paragraphs [0034]-[0036] disclose controlling the lateral motion of an instant vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle when the conditions of a preceding vehicle setting off are met.
With regards to Claim 14, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 and further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein controlling the lateral control of the motor vehicle based on the detected trajectory only takes place as long as no lane marking and/or no front vehicle are present in an area of predetermined size in front of the motor vehicle.”
Kojo Paragraph [0034] discloses a vehicle following a preceding vehicle only when the distance between the vehicles exceeds a threshold and therefore only when a preceding vehicle is not present in an area in front of the instant vehicle corresponding to the threshold distance.
With regards to Claim 15, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further teaches the following limitations:
“comprising: controlling the lateral control of the motor vehicle based on the lane marking and/or the current trajectory of the front vehicle takes place as soon as the lane marking and/or the front vehicle are present in the area of predetermined size in front of the motor vehicle.”
Kojo Paragraph [0034] discloses an instant vehicle M following a preceding vehicle only when said preceding vehicle reaches an area in front of the vehicle that corresponds to a distance above a threshold, i.e. the lateral control only takes place when the preceding vehicle is present in an area in front of a vehicle that is not correlated with the area immediately within the threshold distance, however, the area that the preceding vehicle must be in is still in front of the instant vehicle M.
As per Claim 18: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 13 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 21, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 22, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 15 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 24: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 27, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 28, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 15 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 30, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 24 and further teaches:
“a motor vehicle comprising the data processing device according to Claim 24”
Kojo Figure 5 discloses a vehicle comprising the data processing device according to Claim 24.
Claims 12, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojo, which is directed towards a travel control device that allows a vehicle to follow another vehicle (See Paragraph [0002]) in view of Russell in view of Labuhn (US 5,454,442) which represents analogous art as it is directed towards adaptive cruise control which is a system of travel control in which one vehicle follows another (See Section 1).
With regards to Claim 12, Kojo in view of Russell discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12 but does not disclose the following limitations that Labuhn teaches:
“wherein detecting the trajectory of the front vehicle takes place until the distance between the motor vehicle and the front vehicle exceeds a threshold value.”
Labuhn [Abstract] discloses detecting the trajectory of a vehicle (necessitated by following said vehicle) only when said vehicle exists within a threshold range within sensor range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kojo in view of Russell with the range disclosed by Labuhn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by limiting the range of following to only one in which sensor data can exist.
With regards to Claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 12 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 25, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 12 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 16, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojo, which is directed towards a travel control device that allows a vehicle to follow another vehicle (See Paragraph [0002]) in view of Russell in view of Meinecke (US 2017/0168505) which is an analogous art as it is also directed towards a system for autonomously controlling a vehicle to follow another vehicle (See Paragraph [0003]).
With regards to Claim 16, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 but does not disclose the following limitations that Meinecke teaches:
“determining a planned route of the motor vehicle; and comparing the planned route of the motor vehicle to the detected trajectory, wherein controlling the lateral control of the motor vehicle based on the detected trajectory only takes place when the comparison has a result that the planned route of the motor vehicle and the detected trajectory correspond.”
Meinecke Paragraphs [0098]-[0099] discloses comparing a planned trajectory of a following vehicle to an actual trajectory of a scout vehicle ahead of to determine whether they match to a threshold degree and if they do the following vehicle will autonomously follow the route of the scout vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kojo in view of Russell with the route comparison disclosed by Meinecke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by determining harmony between multiple path-setting methods.
With regards to Claim 23, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 29, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 16 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kojo in view of Russell in view of Karlsson (US 2019/0054920). These references are all analogous as they are all directed to vehicle control systems.
With regards to Claim 17, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 but does not teach the following limitations taught by Karlsson:
“wherein the detected trajectory comprises a plurality of positions of the front vehicle, each position associated with corresponding time information”
Karlsson Paragraph [0031] teaches virtual track points that include position, heading, and time stamps for the lead vehicle that is being tracked by a following vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kojo in view of Russell with the tracking points taught by Karlsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing for persistent tracking of a preceding vehicle.
With regards to Claim 31, Kojo in view of Russell teaches all of the limitations of Claim 11 but does not teach the following limitations taught by Karlsson:
“wherein, when the presence of the second predetermined driving is established, the front vehicle is no longer detectable by the sensors of the motor vehicle”
Karlsson Paragraph [0031] teaches tracking a lead vehicle for a following vehicle using tracking points that are independent to the vehicle’s own sensors and therefore can exist outside of the range of said vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kojo in view of Russell with the tracking points taught by Karlsson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing for persistent tracking of a preceding vehicle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights