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 .
Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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 1 – 10 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. Claim 1 in lines 2 and 5 contain the phrase “a control unit.” The phrase “a control unit” in line 2 should be amended to recite “a sensor unit.”
Claims 2 – 10 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 7 – 10 (as best understood); and 11 – 14, 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strobel (US 2022/0169254).
Regarding Claim 1:
Strobel teaches a vehicle driving assistance control method comprising: determining, by a control unit (120), a crosswind force (paragraph 0017, strength of crosswind based on speed) acting on a host vehicle in a direction crossing the direction of travel of the host vehicle based on a steering angle and acceleration of the host vehicle (paragraph 0058); and controlling, by a control unit (140), upon detecting at least one other vehicle within a predetermined distance from the host vehicle (Fig 3, see 304, and via 110, 122, 126, 129, 134) and a magnitude of the determined crosswind force being greater than a predetermined first threshold value, the driving of the host vehicle based on the direction of the determined crosswind force and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle (Fig 7, via 710, 720, 730, and 740, and see also Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 2:
Strobel teaches controlling driving of the host vehicle comprises controlling at least one of steering and speed of the host vehicle to position the host vehicle on a side of the at least one other detected vehicle along the direction of the crosswind force. (Fig 3, paragraph 0058).
Regarding Claim 3:
Strobel teaches controlling driving of the host vehicle comprises, after positioning the host vehicle on the side of the at least one other detected vehicle in the direction of the determined crosswind force, controlling the speed of the host vehicle to follow a speed of the at least one other detected vehicle (Fig 2 – 3).
Regarding Claim 4:
Strobel teaches the first threshold value is set based on a weight of the host vehicle (paragraph 0034, size evaluation).
Regarding Claim 7:
Strobel teaches recognizing a road ahead of the host vehicle; determining a curvature of the recognized road; and terminating, upon detection of the determined curvature of the road ahead being smaller than a predetermined threshold curvature during the driving control of the host vehicle based on the direction of the crosswind force and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle, the driving control of the host vehicle (Figs 1 – 3, via 120, see also paragraph 0051 and via 416).
Regarding Claim 8:
Strobel teaches determining a presence or absence of a front vehicle in front of the host vehicle based on the position of the at least one other detected vehicle; recognizing a road environment in which the host vehicle is traveling; and determining feasibility of lane changing for the host vehicle based on the road environment; wherein controlling the driving of the host vehicle comprises controlling, upon the front vehicle being determined to be present, the magnitude of the crosswind force being larger than a predetermined second threshold value set to be greater than the first threshold value and the host vehicle being determined feasible of changing lanes in the direction of the crosswind force, at least one of steering and speed of the host vehicle to enable the host vehicle to change lanes in the direction of the crosswind force and to position the host vehicle on a side of the front vehicle in the direction of the crosswind force (Figs 5 – 7).
Regarding Claim 9:
Strobel teaches controlling the driving of the host vehicle comprises controlling, upon the front vehicle being determined to be present and the magnitude of the crosswind force being less than the predetermined second threshold value or the host vehicle being determined infeasible of change lanes in the direction of the crosswind force, at least one of the steering and the speed of the host vehicle to move the host vehicle within a current lane in the direction of the crosswind force and to position the host vehicle in a side-rear position relative to the front vehicle (Figs 3, 5 – 7).
Regarding Claim 10:
Strobel teaches controlling the driving of the host vehicle comprises, after the host vehicle is positioned in the side-rear position relative to the front vehicle, controlling the speed of the host vehicle to maintain a predetermined distance from the front vehicle and to follow the speed of the front vehicle (Figs 3, 5 – 7).
Regarding Claim 11:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 13:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 14:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 19 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 20 above.
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.
Claim(s) 5 – 6, 15 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobel (US 2022/0169254) and in view of Khayyer (US 2022/0266852).
Regarding Claim 5:
Strobel is silent to detecting a user setting signal permitting driving control of the host vehicle based on the magnitude of the crosswind force and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle, wherein controlling the driving of the host vehicle is performed upon detection of the user setting signal.
Strobel does teach the control system can be applied to semi-autonomous and driver assist systems (paragraph 0021).
However, Khayyer teaches a user setting signal permitting driving control of the host vehicle based on the magnitude of the crosswind force and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle, wherein controlling the driving of the host vehicle is performed upon detection of the user setting signal (paragraph 0060, Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the user setting signal of Khayyer in the vehicle of Strobel in order to control the vehicle according to user preferences.
Regarding Claim 6:
Strobel is silent to detecting a user operation signal for controlling the driving of the host vehicle; and terminating, upon detection of the user operation signal during the driving control of the host vehicle based on the direction of the crosswind and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle, the driving control of the host vehicle.
However, Khayyer teaches detecting a user operation signal for controlling the driving of the host vehicle; and terminating, upon detection of the user operation signal during the driving control of the host vehicle based on the direction of the crosswind and the position of the at least one other detected vehicle, the driving control of the host vehicle (paragraph 0060, Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the user setting signal of Khayyer in the vehicle of Strobel in order to control the vehicle according to user preferences.
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747