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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 comprises, inter alia, “decrease…a heading of the vehicle…” does not make sense. Claims 14-15 are objected to for at least comprising the objected claim subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (Gross; US 2020/0050195) in view of Oka et al. (Oka; US 2020/0307597).
As per claim 1, Gross teaches an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor (one or more sensors; see e.g. para. [0028]);
a display (a display see e.g. para. [0048]);
a memory storing at least one instruction (see e.g. para. [0031]); and
a processor operatively coupled to the sensor, the display, and the memory (a processor executes the stored instructions in the memory, see e.g. para. [0031], which means the memory is coupled the processor, furthermore the sensors are also connected to the processor and the memory, see e.g. FIG. 1. Gross further teaches that the acts or steps which are performed by one or more processors can be displayed on a displayed on a display, see e.g. para. [0048], wherein the displayed content can be controlled by the same or processor(s) or it would be obvious to use a separate or dedicated processor),
wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
obtain, based on sensing information received from the sensor, information about at least one other vehicle which is traveling in a second lane adjacent to a first lane in which the vehicle is travelling (determining whether an object exists in destination lane, based on sensor data, see e.g. para. [0036], wherein the destination lane is an adjacent lane; see e.g. FIG. 3);
determine, based on driving information of the vehicle, a front safety distance for each of the at least one other vehicle and a rear safety distance for each of the at least one other vehicle (a front safety constraint 400 and a rear safety constraint 300; see e.g. FIGS. 3 and 4, wherein the constraints or distances are based on speed of own vehicle; see e.g. para. [0040]);
determine at least one candidate area in the second lane for a lane change (a longitudinal gap in adjacent lane for a lane change; see e.g. para. [0044]), wherein the at least one candidate area excludes areas within the front safety distance and the rear safety distance (the longitudinal gap is between the constrains and end of the vehicle, see e.g. para. [0044], which means the constrains are excluded from the gap).
Gross does not teach that the determination of front and/or rear safety distance is based on information about the at least one other vehicle and display, via the display, the at least one candidate area.
Oka, however, teaches to [determine and] specify one or more possible spaces [or distance], (wherein the space is constrained as suggested by Gross), for which the lane change of own vehicle is possible based on information of a second preceding vehicle (see e.g. para. [0099]). Even though Oka does not teach displaying the candidate area, Oka teaches a display device 92 for displaying and receiving one or more user inputs (see e.g. para. [0036] and [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to display a plurality of different data items on the disclosed display including but not limited to the one or more candidate area for the purpose of getting user input or instruction for improving safety or reliability.
Gross and Oka are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving safety and/or reliability.
As per claim 6, the apparatus of claim 1 as taught by Gross and Oka, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine a speed of a second other vehicle, among the at least one other vehicle, traveling behind the vehicle (Oka teaches determining one or more characteristics of a second another vehicle including speed, see e.g. para. [0041], wherein the second other vehicle travelling behind own vehicle 1101, see e.g. para. [0090]); and determine, based on the speed of the second other vehicle being smaller than a speed of the vehicle, a second front safety distance for the second other vehicle, wherein the second front safety distance is a predefined minimum distance to be maintained between the vehicle and the second other vehicle (as discussed earlier, Gross teaches safety constraints and a longitudinal gap for lane change [as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1] and Oka teaches that one or more possible spaces for lane change can be determined based on a secondary or another vehicle speed information [see e.g. para. [0036] and [0041]], wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the constraints and the longitudinal gap for the lane change can be extended to a plurality of vehicle on the right, left, front and/or rear of the own or host vehicle).
As per claim 7, the apparatus of claim 1 as taught by Gross and Oka, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: determine the rear safety distance for each of the at least one other vehicle, based on a speed of the vehicle, a margin time, or a margin distance (as discussed earlier, Gross teaches safety constraints [front and rear] based on speed of own vehicle and a longitudinal gap for lane change [as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1] and Oka teaches that one or more possible spaces for lane change can be determined based on a secondary or another vehicle speed information [see e.g. para. [0036] and [0041]]).
As per claim 8, the apparatus of claim 1 as taught by Gross and Oka, wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine a first rear safety distance of a first other vehicle, among the at least one other vehicle, traveling in front of the vehicle and in the second lane (as discussed earlier, Gross teaches a front and rear safety constraints and a longitudinal gap, see e.g. para. [0044]); determine a second front safety distance of a second other vehicle traveling behind the vehicle (as discussed earlier, Gross teaches a front and rear safety constraints and a longitudinal gap, see e.g. para. [0044]); and determine an area between the first other vehicle and the second other vehicle as the at least one candidate area (Oka teaches determining a candidate area which can be between a first and second vehicle; see e.g. FIG. 3), wherein the determined area excludes areas within the first rear safety distance and the second front safety distance (Gross teaches the constraints and a longitudinal gap, as discussed earlier, which would be applicable in this case as well).
As per claim 9, see e.g. analysis of merits of claim 8, wherein a third vehicle can be another vehicle different from the second vehicle, i.e. a vehicle in a right lane for example.
As per claim 16, it is rejected similar to claim 1.
As per claim 20, it is rejected similar to claim 6.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Oka and further in view of Hu et al. (Hu; US 2025/0006055).
As per claim 12, the apparatus of claim 10 as taught by Gross and Oka, except the claimed wherein the at least one instruction is configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: determine, based on a user input, a target area, among the at least one candidate area, for the lane change; and display, via the display, guide information about one point of the target area, wherein the one point is expected to be reached based on the vehicle making the lane change.
Hu, however, teaches determine, based on a user input, a target area, among at least one candidate areas, for the lane change; and display, via a display, guide information about one point of the target area, wherein the one point is expected to be reached based on the vehicle making the lane change (selecting or choosing a displayed parking based on past user inputs and displaying guide information one or more points of the target area, wherein the one or more points of parking are to be reached by the vehicle when parking, see e.g. FIGS. 4a-6 and para. [[0148] and [0222], Hu further teaches that a lane change can be carried out by the disclosed system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to extend the user input or past selections to determine a target area in the disclosed systems of Gross and/or Oka).
Gross, Oka and Hu are in a same or similar field of endear, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved system which can learn from user inputs and respond accordingly which in turn can improve user experience.
As per claim 13, a selection of a position where a user wants vehicle to move as taught by Hu and discussed in analysis of merits of claim 15, furthermore Gross teaches slowing down based on action plan, see e.g. para. [0043] and biased driving towards target lane (see e.g. FIG. 6).
As per claim 14, a dynamic region of interest to carry out lane change as taught by Gross, wherein the lane change can be stopped when it’s judged that lane change is not possible as taught by Oka (see e.g. para. [0069]), wherein the size of the region of interest depends on relative speed which is indictive of closing in or gap between vehicles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to prevent lane change if the disclosed size is reduced in a threshold time period in order to avoid collision with an incoming vehicle to reduce loss of life and/or property.
As per claim 15, an increase in size of the region of interest would mean that it is safe for lane change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 10-11 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights