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 Applicants’ filing on May 27, 2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1-3 and 11-13 have been amended, and claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are canceled without prejudice. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 14-19 filed May 27, 2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s amendment to cancel claims 7 and 17 and applicant’s argument that the computing device is the basis of the apparatus claim set has persuaded the examiner to reconsider the interpretation for claims 11-20. Therefore, the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) have been withdrawn by the examiner.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) Rejections , applicant’s amendment has canceled claims 7 and 17 recited in the rejection, foregoing the condition. Therefore, the rejection to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejections , applicant’s has amended the independent claims to remove the term "supporting" such that the first vehicle's actions are now recited only as "transmitting" and "receiving". Additionally, the claims have been amended to recite "absolute velocity" to remove any ambiguity as to whether absolute or relative velocity is being recited. However, the “supporting” terms have not been removed from the dependent claims, therefore, the rejections to claims 3, 4, 8, 13, 14 and 18 are upheld.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Path generation and sharing, Future-time calculation by the second vehicle, risk-based decision by the second vehicle, per-unit-time real-time recalculation and selective deceleration, and V2X-specific weighting and inherent characteristic framing) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 1 and 11 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite p as preset weight for a safe distance, the preset weight being predetermined based on the V2X communication yet the specification describes p as a weight for a safe distance according to a communication device.
Therefore, the cited claims and the claims that depend on these claims are rejected as the amended claim limitations present new matter to the invention. Note: For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that any variable p will be interpreted as the preset weight being predetermined based on the V2X communication and/or the device.
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 3-4, 6, 8, 13-14, 16 and 18 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 3-4, 8, 13-14 and 18 disclose the limitations “supports the second vehicle” or “supporting the second vehicle” but it is unclear what action is required to satisfy the limitation. The specification provides not additional clarity on the topic apart from a lack of reaction to the second vehicle depending on the negotiation outcome. Note: For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that any support of the second vehicle will be interpreted as a reactive decision to either outcome from a lane change negotiation. Note: For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that any velocities of the first or second vehicle will be calculated as the expected absolute velocities.
Claims 3 and 13 discloses the limitations "supporting the second vehicle to (i) calculate an expected inter-vehicle distance" and "supporting the second vehicle to decide whether to accept/refuse/automatically decide the negotiation" which implies the second vehicle is doing part of the computing, but the scope of the claims only include the first vehicle's computing device. Furthermore, the claim is directed to a first vehicle's computing device with a processor for executing instructions, but the body of the claim recites steps performed by a computing device on a second vehicle, which makes the claim indefinite.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claims 3 and 13 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Note: For the purpose of this examination, it will be interpreted that any computing device will belong to the first vehicle only and any intended results from the second vehicle will be arbitrary (See MPEP 2111.04).
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kum et al., US 20230139133 A1 (Hereinafter, “Kum”) in view of Vassilovski et al., US20200342760A1 (Hereinafter, “Vassilovski”) in further view of Park et al., US20230031030A1 (Hereinafter, “Park”), ”) in further view of Oh et al., KR20170047043A (Hereinafter, “Oh”),
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Kum discloses a computing device of a first vehicle for sharing a pathway of the first vehicle which is driving a host lane with a pathway of a second vehicle (305) which is driving a target lane See at last Fig.1-2 and [0008], “a lane change method performed by a lane change system (computing device) may include receiving driving state information (host lane/first vehicle pathway) of a vehicle and outputting a path and velocity plan corresponding to the input driving state information of the vehicle by using a lane change algorithm … and situation information for recognizing a situation of a surrounding vehicle on the basis of the vehicle (target lane/second vehicle pathway).”
changing a driving lane of the first vehicle from the host lane to the target lane, See [0022], “Controlling the (first) vehicle … as the vehicle performs the lane change, and maintain a (host) lane of the vehicle by considering an inter-vehicle distance from a leading vehicle in a target lane.”
comprising: at least one memory which saves instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processes of: See [0063], “The processor may load, onto the memory, a program code (instructions) stored in a file of a program for the lane change method.
(I) In response to a selection of the target lane as a lane change direction generating an expected dynamic path from a first current position of the first vehicle to a safety target arrival position on the target lane by referring to the first current position of the first vehicle and a second current position of the second vehicle;
(II) receiving, by the first vehicle, a negotiation response from the See [0048], “The analysis of the easiness of a lane change is for determining whether a gap for a lane change is a gap between vehicles, which is reachable by a vehicle for a minimum time or more that is taken to perform the lane change on the basis of a longitudinal position (current position) of the vehicle … The degree of gap risk is for determining whether a gap between a vehicle and a surrounding vehicle has a minimum safety distance. The safety of a vehicle may be evaluated based on the determined degree of gap risk.” Also [0050], “In the negotiation stage, the vehicle widens a gap area to be cut in and checks a yield intention of the lagging vehicle by showing an intention of the lane change to the lagging vehicle in the retrieved gap.” Also [0059], “In the negotiation process, if the minimum safety distance is secured in the target gap, the vehicle may transition from the negotiation stage to the lane change stage. If the minimum safety distance is not secured in the target gap, the vehicle may transition from the negotiation stage to the ready stage.” And [0060], “In the lane change stage, the vehicle may perform the lane change and simultaneously calculate a degree of risk for surrounding vehicles in real time.” By accepting the second vehicle’s response to the negotiation process, it inherently supports their decision without the use of a formal communication medium.
changing the driving lane of the first vehicle to the target lane or maintaining the driving lane of the first vehicle to the host lane by referring to the negotiation response received from the See [0059], “In the negotiation stage, the vehicle may deliver a lane change intention of the vehicle to the lagging vehicle in the target gap while driving closely to the target gap as much as possible to the extent that the vehicle does not pass the lane of the target gap. In the negotiation process, if the minimum safety distance is secured in the target gap (i.e. second vehicle accepted negotiation), the vehicle may transition from the negotiation stage to the lane change stage. If the minimum safety distance is not secured in the target gap (i.e. rejected negotiation), the vehicle may transition from the negotiation stage to the ready stage.”
wherein, at the process of (I), the expected dynamic path includes a starting position of a lane change, an ending position of the lane change, and the safety target arrival position; wherein the starting position of the lane change is a position on the host lane where the first vehicle starts changing lanes from the host lane to the target lane; wherein the ending position of the lane change is a position on the target lane within a preset threshold close to a virtual center line of a driving direction of the target lane after the first vehicle enters the target lane; wherein the safety target arrival position is a position located a predetermined distance ahead in the driving direction of the target lane from the ending position of the lane change; and wherein the predetermined position on the target lane is the ending position of the lane change, See at least Fig 2-3 and [0063-0069].
wherein the degree of risk is determined as being below a preset risk threshold in case the expected inter-vehicle distance is greater than a preset target safety distance, and is determined to exceed the preset risk threshold in case the expected inter-vehicle distance is less than the preset target safety distance, See [0048], “The degree of gap risk is for determining whether a gap between a vehicle and a surrounding vehicle has a minimum safety distance. The safety of a vehicle may be evaluated based on the determined degree of gap risk.” Also [0068], “In the lane change stage, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may calculate a degree of risk for a surrounding vehicle in real time while the vehicle performs the lane change (if below the risk threshold), and may transition from the lane change stage to the ready stage when the calculated degree of risk is a specific degree of risk or more.”
Kum discloses a lane change device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose communication methods for the device. However, Vassilovski teaches the lane change method including the second vehicle communication in Fig.23-24, further including the following:
transmitting a negotiation request to the second vehicle while sharing the expected dynamic path with the second vehicle, See [0093], “in FIG. 12, the ego vehicle may communicate … using V2X … to perform inter-vehicle negotiation for lane changes … to exchange V2X capability data elements such as vehicle status, location and abilities, measurement data, and/or calculated status (expected dynamic path).”
wherein, in case the second vehicle accepts the negotiation request, while the first vehicle is driving from the first current position to the ending position of the lane change, the second vehicle (i) obtains, for each unit time, an expected position of the first vehicle, an expected position of the second vehicle, an absolute velocity of the first vehicle, an absolute velocity of the second vehicle, and the shared expected dynamic path, See at least [0107], “In FIG. 14, in an embodiment, an example message flow between autonomous vehicle … illustrated in FIG. 13A and FIG. 13B … Autonomous vehicles A, 1305A and 1305B, and ego vehicle E 1300 may negotiate … the timing, inter-car spacing, and schedule of events involved such that the lane change may be completed safely.” And Fig.23 and [0129], “In step 2360, the ego vehicle receives at least one response … in a sixth message from the second vehicle … grant permission for the ego vehicle to merge … specify timing and relative location between the vehicle and the first vehicle and/or second vehicle for the ego vehicle to initiate the merge. Additional messaging may be required to coordinate the movement and spacing between the ego vehicle and the first and/or second vehicles during and after the merge.“ Also [0118], “messages may be sent and received via wireless transceiver(s) 930 and antenna(s) 932 and may be directed via processor 910.” Also [0146], “the ego vehicle may send positioning information and/or velocity and heading information.”
(ii) calculates the expected inter-vehicle distance in real time for each of the unit times, and (iii) slows down in a specific unit time section in which the expected inter-vehicle distance is calculated to be smaller than the preset target safety distance, and See [0107], “Autonomous vehicles A, 1305A and 1305B, and ego vehicle E 1300 may negotiate, in an embodiment, the timing, inter-car spacing, and schedule of events involved such that the lane change may be completed safely … request to increase inter-vehicle spacing between autonomous vehicles A, 1305A and 1305B. Autonomous vehicles A, 1305A and 1305B, may send messaging between each other to negotiate whether vehicle 1305A speeds up or whether vehicle 1305B slows down or some combination thereof.” And [0093], “FIG. 12, the ego vehicle may communicate … using V2X or other wireless or communication transceiver over link 1223 … to perform inter-vehicle negotiation for lane changes … and to exchange V2X capability data elements such as vehicle status, location (current position) and abilities, measurement data (inter-vehicle distance), and/or calculated status (i.e. expected dynamic path and position), and to exchange other V2X vehicle status steps not covered in the V2X capability data elements.“
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the V2X communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Kum and Vassilovski teach a lane changing device for a vehicle with V2X communications, but does not explicitly disclose distance formulas. However, Park teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 2 and 12:
wherein, at the process of (I), a distance from the first current position to the starting position of the lane change is defined as xl(m) = {Vo (m/s) x 3.6} + {Vo (m/s) x p}, a distance from the starting position of the lane change to the ending position of the lane change is defined as x2(m) = {i + V (m/s) x p}, and a distance from the ending position of the lane change to the safety target arrival position is defined as x3(m) = {c + V (m/s) x p}, wherein the Vo is an initial velocity, the V is a velocity, the “p” is a preset weight for a safe distance, the preset weight being predetermined See at least Fig.13,16,19, 22, [0043] and [0124-0157], “(x.sub.0, y.sub.0) is the current position of the autonomous vehicle, and (x.sub.f, y.sub.f) is a point in a lane to move to. According to the characteristics of the lane change path that need to be considered for the vehicle to safely change a lane … the speed of the autonomous vehicle may be reflected as a factor determining the point (x.sub.f, y.sub.f) in the lane to move to. And [0125], “After generating a path for lane maintenance or lane change in the three modes, the control apparatus of the autonomous vehicle may perform lateral control to track the path. The control apparatus of the autonomous vehicle may track the path, for example, on the basis of a pure pursuit path tracking method. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 8, the control apparatus of the autonomous vehicle may set a point on the path as a look ahead point 801 to track the target path and may generate a required steering angle of the autonomous vehicle to pass the look ahead point.”
[Equation 13] S(x.sub.0)=y.sub.0 / S(x.sub.f)=y.sub.f,(x.sub.f=d.sub.0+υ.sub.rτ.sub.s) / S′(x.sub.0)=0
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the distance formulas disclosed in Park with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimally travel in accordance with surrounding traffic flow, see Park [0010].
Kum, Vassilovski, and Park teach a lane changing device for a vehicle with V2X communications, but does not explicitly disclose preset weight being predetermined based on the V2X communication. However, Oh teaches a controller for intervehicle distance using a preset weight based on a V2X message delay in [0011].
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the preset weight based on V2X communications disclosed in Oh with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to control the separation distance from a preceding vehicle in consideration of a reception delay time of a message due to the vehicle to everything (V2X) communication delay, see Oh [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 2 and 12, Kum discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1 and 11:
wherein the expected inter-vehicle distance from the second vehicle on the target lane following the first vehicle is controlled to exceed a preset safety distance. See at least [0069], “When the vehicle succeeds in a target lane for the retrieved gap in the transitioned completion stage, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may maintain the lane of the vehicle by considering an inter-vehicle distance from the leading vehicle of the target lane.”
Regarding Claim 3 and 13, Kum discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2 and 12:
wherein, at the process of (II), on condition that t1 is defined by an expected time for the first vehicle to drive from the first current position to the ending position of the lane change, and
See [0066], “The path and velocity plan output unit 220 may transition from the ready stage to the approaching stage in order to adjust the longitudinal position of the vehicle, and may bring the vehicle to approach the retrieved gap in the transitioned approaching stage. The path and velocity plan output unit 220 may determine whether the retrieved gap is a gap reachable by the vehicle for a minimum time (t1) or more that is taken to perform the lane change while the vehicle approaches the retrieved gap.”
a second expected position is defined by an expected position of the second vehicle after the second vehicle drives from the second current position in the target lane for the time t1, See [0047], “FIG. 5 is a diagram for describing the gap search and evaluation algorithm … for predicting a future movement of a surrounding vehicle. A minimum safety distance … calculated as the sum of a free running distance and a stop distance … reached by a vehicle for a predicted time may be calculated.“
the processor of the first vehicle
See [0063], “the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may be different functional expressions of the processor for subsequently executing steps 310 to 320.” And [0067], “the vehicle may secure the area of the retrieved gap by delivering a lane change intention of the vehicle to the lagging vehicle in the retrieved gap, and may identify the yield intention of the lagging vehicle. When a minimum safety distance is secured in the retrieved gap, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may transition from the negotiation stage to the lane change stage. When the minimum safety distance is not secured in the retrieved gap, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may transition from the negotiation stage to the ready stage.” First vehicle has outcomes of each scenario in support to the second vehicle response to lane change intention negotiation.
Kum discloses a lane change device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose a method of receiving communications for the device. However, Vassilovski teaches the lane change method in Fig.23-24.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the vehicle communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Kum discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 3 and 13:
wherein, at the process of (II), the processor(210/220) of the first vehicle See [0062], “The processor of the lane change system 100 may include a driving state input unit 210 and a path and velocity plan output unit 220 “ And [0068], “Furthermore, when identifying the yield intention of the lagging vehicle in the negotiation stage, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may transition from the negotiation stage to the lane change stage. In the transitioned lane change stage, the vehicle may perform the lane change by using the deep reinforcement learning algorithm. In the lane change stage, the path and velocity plan output unit 220 may calculate a degree of risk for a surrounding vehicle in real time while the vehicle performs the lane change, and may transition from the lane change stage to the ready stage when the calculated degree of risk is a specific degree of risk or more.” First vehicle has outcomes for each scenario in support of the second vehicle response to lane change negotiation.
Kum discloses a lane change device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose a method of receiving communications for the device. However, Vassilovski teaches the lane change method in Fig.23-24.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the vehicle communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Kum discloses a lane changing device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose inter-vehicle communication. However, Vassilovski teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein, at the process of (II), in case the second vehicle is an autonomous car, the processor (910) of the first vehicle supports the second vehicle to automatically decide whether to accept the negotiation request by referring to the degree of risk, and See [0107], “Autonomous vehicles … may negotiate … the timing, inter-car spacing, and schedule of events involved such that the lane change may be completed safely (degree of risk) … respond to ego vehicle (E) 1300 with an acknowledgement and an acceptance or denial of the request to increase inter-vehicle spacing (receiving second vehicle decision) between autonomous vehicles A, 1305A and 1305B.”
wherein, in case the second vehicle is a connected car, the processor (910) of the first vehicle supports the second vehicle to automatically decide or a driver of the second vehicle to manually decide whether to accept the negotiation request by referring to the degree of risk. See [0108], “Vehicle E (1500) negotiates and executes the lane change … vehicles 1510A and 1510B are non-autonomous … If either of non-autonomous vehicles (1510A, 1510B) is incapable of responding to a lane change request by autonomous ego vehicle 1500, it may respond with an incapability message, a refusal or other message denoting its inability to respond. If the other non-autonomous vehicle of non-autonomous vehicles (1510A, 1510B) is capable of responding, it may create the entire gap without further involvement by the other non-autonomous vehicle of non-autonomous vehicles … based on the request failure, autonomous ego vehicle 1300 may re-target the lane merge to another space and/or another pair of automobiles.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the inter-vehicle communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Kum discloses a lane changing device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose inter-vehicle communication. However, Vassilovski teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11:
wherein, at the process of (II), in case the second vehicle accepts the negotiation request even on condition that the first vehicle driving the host lane has not passed the starting position of the lane change, the processor (910) of the first vehicle changes the driving lane to the target lane after driving until the starting position of the lane change, and See at least Fig.11 and [0092], “V2X inter-vehicle negotiation accounts for the status of neighboring vehicles and enables negotiation and coordination between neighboring or otherwise impacted vehicles based on vehicle priority, vehicle capabilities (such as the ability to stop, decelerate or accelerate to avoid collision), and, in some embodiments, various conditions such as weather conditions (rainy, foggy, snow, wind), road conditions (dry, wet, icy, slippery). These include … negotiation for lane change between adjacent cars … Inter-vehicle negotiation may also include time-based and/or distance-based factors (i.e. planning lane change prior to start position).” Also [0130], “the ego vehicle may receive communication from the first vehicle or the second vehicle … regarding when to perform the lane change (i.e. prior to starting position) and may provide acknowledgement when the lane change is complete. Various conditions such as poor weather conditions or poor road conditions may be utilized to additionally affect the target rate or timing of the lane merge and/or the spacing between the target vehicles and the ego vehicle (thereby affecting the starting position).”
wherein, in case the second vehicle accepts the negotiation request on condition that the first vehicle driving the host lane has passed the starting position of the lane change, the processor of the first vehicle terminates a process of the negotiation request, maintains the driving lane as the host lane, and then resumes a subsequent negotiation request by referring to a relative subsequent position and a relative subsequent velocity between the first vehicle and the second vehicle. See at least Fig.11 and [0130], “the ego vehicle may receive communication from the first vehicle or the second vehicle … regarding when to perform the lane change … Various conditions such as poor weather conditions or poor road conditions may be utilized to additionally affect the target rate or timing of the lane merge and/or the spacing between the target vehicles and the ego vehicle (cancelling the negotiated lane change).” Ego vehicle would have to cancel the negotiated merge if no space is available at the starting position. Also[0108], “If either of non-autonomous vehicles (1510A, 1510B) is incapable of responding to a lane change … autonomous ego vehicle 1300 may re-target the lane merge to another space and/or another pair of automobiles (resuming negotiation).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the V2X communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Kum discloses a lane changing device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose inter-vehicle communication. However, Vassilovski teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 11:
wherein, at the process of (I), data of the expected dynamic path is used by adding a path See [0037], “the Basic Safety Message … determining and providing these data elements (i.e. expected dynamic path). In an embodiment, the vehicle is able to dynamically update or adjust the value of the capability data elements using vehicle sensor data relating to sensed static or dynamic conditions and using external V2X inputs such as data elements from other vehicles, to determine internal vehicle status, behavior and external environmental conditions as well as to provide up to date data elements over the air (OTA) to nearby vehicles.“ And [0060], “example data elements for autonomous and non-autonomous vehicle determination … These values may be allocated to existing SAE J2735 Data element.”
wherein path information is generated in a dynamic array with ASN Sequence data, wherein the path is comprised of an array of pairs of x point and y point in an ENU coordinate system. See at least [0003], “Path and maneuver planning for a vehicle to everything (V2X)-capable vehicle, here referred to as the ego vehicle, depends on … V2X application-layer standards via a set of Data elements (DEs) for vehicles to exchange capability information. Using these data elements will enable vehicles to optimize times and distances for inter-vehicle spacing and maneuvers. It is understood that references to vehicle to everything (V2X) … encompass various communication embodiments and standards such as, but not limited to … Basic Safety Message or the Cooperative Awareness Message, and/or other vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and other vehicle to everything (V2X) communication embodiments as may exist or may be defined in the future (including ASN sequence data presented in an ENU coordinate system).”
Vassilovski does not explicitly teach the ASN sequence data presented in an ENU coordinate system. Examiner notes that the applied reference has been interpreted and applied assuming basic knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. According to in re Jacoby, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962), the skilled artisan is presumed to know something more about the art than only what is disclosed in the applied references. Also, in In re Bode, 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA 1977), the court found that every reference relies to some extent on knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that, which is disclosed therein. As applied to Vassilovski, it is within the basic knowledge of a skilled artisan that an ASN sequence data presented in an ENU coordinate system can be applied to any data set with predictable results. It is purely design choice. In other words, Vassilovski’s various communication embodiments and standards would function with predicable results using any known method of vehicle communications because these data elements are simply a way to process information for inter-vehicle communication. Therefore one would be motivated to utilize ASN sequence data presented in an ENU coordinate system because the results would be predicable.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the V2X communication limitations disclosed in Vassilovski with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate the capabilities and behavior of surrounding vehicles , see Vassilovski [0003].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kum in view of Vassilovski, in further view of Park, in further view of Oh, in further view of Natsumi et al., JP 2018144660A (Hereinafter, “Natsumi”).
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Kum discloses a lane change device for a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose distance formulas for the device. However, Natsumi teaches the following limitation dependent on Claims 3 and 13:
wherein, at the process of (I), a distance which the second vehicle drives from the second current position to the second expected position is defined as d2(m) = {Vt * xr / VH}, wherein the target safety distance on a general road is defined as ds(m) = {V0(m/s) * 3.6 - 15(m)}, and wherein the target safety distance on a highway is defined as ds(m) = {V0(m/s) * 3.6}, wherein the Vt is a velocity of the second vehicle, the VH is a velocity of the first vehicle, the xr is a length of a remaining path to the ending position of the lane change for the first vehicle. See at least [0035], "the preceding distance ΔL1 is the inter-vehicle distance ΔL0 calculated based on the speed V2 of the host vehicle 20. In this case, it is preferable to determine that the host vehicle 20 has reached the preceding vehicle 30. The inter-vehicle distance ΔL0 is set to an inter-vehicle distance at which the driver activates the brake and starts deceleration, and is a value that varies according to the speed V2. As the inter-vehicle distance ΔL0, V2 (m) is exemplified when the speed is V2 (km / h) for a highway, and V2-15 (m) is exemplified for a general road." "Specifically, the preceding relative speed ΔV1 and the preceding distance ΔL1 are acquired as the traveling state of the preceding vehicle 30, and the subsequent relative speed ΔV2 and the following distance ΔL2 are acquired as the traveling state of the following vehicle 40." Figures show lane changes based on distance calculations.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Kum’s device with the distance formulas disclosed in Natsumi with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve fuel economy by reducing unnecessary acceleration and deceleration, see Natsumi [0007].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights