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
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1—16 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of German Patent Application DE10 2023 212 860.8, filed on 12/18/2023 in Federal Republic of Germany, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 11/19/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 are directed to a method (process), a device (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite the abstract limitations of, or substantially similar to: “ascertaining a plurality of factors of the road relevant to overtaking” (e.g., a mental process) and “ascertaining a suitability measure… based on the ascertained factors relevant to overtaking” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations directed the actions such as “ascertaining,” cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, the definition of the word “ascertain,” according to Oxford Languages is “to find something out for certain,” and carries a similar definition as “determine.” Both making determinations, and ascertaining information, are actions which can be performed in a human mind and therefore constitute mental processes. More specifically, the claim limitations are not recited in a manner which precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1, 15, and 16 recite the additional element of, or substantially similar to: “entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map representing the road,” which amounts to post-solution data output equivalent to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional element which recites “entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map representing the road,” amounts to extra-solution activity. Examiner notes that extra-solution activity which is identified to be “well-understood, routine, and/or conventional,” constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., as described in MPEP 2106.05(g)) and cannot provide for an additional element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. To this end, the MPEP states “[t]he courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions… iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.” (MPEP 2106.05(d), Section II). Under the broadest reasonable expectation, the limitation “entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map,” is equivalent to data entry and/or storing the collected data in memory (e.g., memory associated with the map). As such, the identified additional element amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Claims 2—10 and 14 are directed to the types of data utilized in ascertaining the suitability measure which is considered an additional element amounting to extra-solution activity. This data includes a lane factor, a visual range factor, a curvature factor, a speed limit factor, a distance factor, a road width factor, a coefficient of sliding friction factor, a road traffic hazard factor, and surrounding data gathered in real-time. The MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity… Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). As stated above, limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. As such, claims 2—10 and 14 do not function to provide for a practical application of the judicial exception identified in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the factors relevant to overtaking are scaled to a predetermined scaling interval,” which is directed to the mathematical concept of “scaling,” and therefore recites an abstract idea. Since claim 11 itself is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (e.g., the claim does not recite any additional elements), the claim cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the factors relevant to overtaking are at least partly weighted with an individual weighting factor,” which is directed to the mathematical concept of weighting data and therefore recites an abstract idea. Since claim 12 itself is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (e.g., the claim does not recite any additional elements), the claim cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites limitations directed to performing “a compensation calculation,” which is inherently directed to a mathematical concept given that it is a calculation. For example, actions such as performing approximations and generating continuous functions are directed to mathematical concepts. Since claim 13 itself is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (e.g., the claim does not recite any additional elements which have not already been addressed), the claim cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4—7, 9—10, 12, and 14—16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Liu et al., hereinafter “Liu,” (US 20220083065 A1) in view of Published Japanese Patent Application to Fujimoto (JP 2006293615 A), an English translation of which is provided herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses ascertaining a plurality of factors (map data 160, sensor data 155, and position system 165 which are included in FIG. 1; para. [0037], “[t]he vehicle computing system can use the perception data, prediction data, map data, and/or other data to generate a motion plan for the vehicle.”) of the road relevant to overtaking (See FIG. 8 which is a method directed to generating, analyzing, and selecting a trajectory from multiple trajectories which are associated with individual merge points to achieve a merger in a lane change region; the data utilized, and the method performed, in FIG. 8 is collected and processed by the vehicle computing system 110 in FIG. 1 which includes map data 160, sensor data 155, and position data 165);
ascertaining a suitability measure (FIG. 8; Step 812; generating a suitability classification for each candidate basis path where the candidate basis paths are each associated with a merge point as noted in steps 808 and 810) for at least one location on the road which indicates a measure of suitability for overtaking at the at least one location based on the ascertained factors relevant to overtaking (Step 812 of FIG. 8 is performed by vehicle computing system 110 for each merge point and associated candidate basis path).
Lui discloses the vehicle computing system 110 may include one or more vehicle user devices 180 which may include a display “viewable by a user of the vehicle 105 that is located in the front of the vehicle 105 (e.g., driver's seat, front passenger seat).” (para. [0098]) However, Lui may not explicitly disclose entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map representing the road. Fujimoto, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to an “overtaking support device,” for supporting driver operations (e.g., merging, lane changing, and overtaking) teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Fujimoto teaches:
“[t]he display device 7 is used to display a road map, the current position of the vehicle, the driving route, the positions of turning-off areas (to be described later), overtaking zones, etc., and is configured, for example, by a color liquid crystal display.” (para. [0026]);
“[t]he map database stored in the HDD 9 is a database that stores various map data required to display road maps and background maps on the display device 7, and to superimpose the vehicle's current position, driving route, route guidance information, etc. on top of these.” (para. [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the display device of Liu according to the method of Fujimoto where the display device located in the vehicle of Liu would be used to display the suitability classification for each candidate basis path and associated merge point determined by Liu according to the teaching of Fujimoto. The combination combines the respective elements in a known manner where each element performs the same function separately as in combination. The combination would yield the predictable result of displaying the results of the analysis performed by Liu in order to provide the user/driver with the results of the analysis.
Regarding claim 2, Liu modified by Fujimoto discloses wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a lane factor (In Lui, the lane geometry is used to determine where lane changes are possible as described in para. [0130]; para. [0117], “wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a lane factor, wherein a number of lanes of the road in each direction of travel at the at least one location is ascertained, wherein the lane factor is ascertained based on the ascertained number of lanes of the road in each direction of travel.” Fujimoto at para. [0037] similarly teaches using lane count as a factor in identifying where lane changes may take place in stating “a road with two or more lanes can be considered a suitable section for overtaking.”), wherein a number of lanes of the road in each direction of travel at the at least one location is ascertained (Lui, para. [0088], “map data 160 can provide information regarding:… the location and directions of traffic lanes (e.g., the location and direction of a parking lane, a turning lane, a bicycle lane, or other lanes within a particular roadway or other travel way and/or one or more boundary markings associated therewith)…”; Fujimoto at para. [0032] similarly teaches “[o]ther attribute information stored includes the road type of the link, link length, road width, number of lanes, and driving regulation information such as whether overtaking is permitted, speed limit, vehicle width limit, vehicle height limit, one-way street, and whether parking is permitted.”), wherein the lane factor is ascertained based on the ascertained number of lanes of the road in each direction of travel (whether or not overtaking/changing lanes is suitable for a given stretch of road is partially determined by the number of lanes for both Liu and Fujimoto as discussed above.).
Regarding claim 4, Liu modified by Fujimoto teach wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a curvature factor (Liu, para. [0047], “the merge point selection system can eliminate the point from consideration as being too curvy (e.g., unlikely to result in a drivable basis path).”; para. [0159], “[f]or each candidate basis path, the vehicle computing system (e.g., vehicle computing system 110 in FIG. 1) can determine whether a curvature associated with the candidate basis path exceeds a predetermined curvature threshold. The suitability classification can be based, at least in part on whether the maximum curvature exceeds a predetermined curvature threshold.” The curvature factor of Liu is whether or not the road or path is too curvy to perform the merge maneuver), wherein a curvature including a horizontal or a vertical curvature of the road at the at least one location is ascertained (any curvature determination related to the road, such as that recited above with respect to para. [0159], fulfills the limitation directed to the horizontal and vertical curvature insofar as, the claim does not provide a datum/reference for determining which direction is horizontal and/or vertical), wherein the curvature factor is ascertained based on the ascertained curvature (as described in Liu, the curvature factor is whether or not a potential curvature is feasible according to the cars capabilities; see para. [0061], [0132], and [0159]).
Regarding claim 5, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a speed limit factor (Liu, speed profile generator 318; para. [0121]—[0125]), wherein a maximum permissible speed at the at least one location is ascertained (Liu, para. [0094], “[t]he speed profiles can also be generated based on speed targets associated with a legal speed limit or a velocity target associated with one or more other factors (e.g., measured average traffic velocity for a particular area).”), wherein the speed limit factor is ascertained based on the ascertained maximum permissible speed (see above citation to para. [0094]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a distance factor (“ordering/prioritizing candidate merge points”; para. [0047], “[t]he merge point selection system can filter the plurality of candidate merge points to remove any that are unsuitable immediately. To do so, the merge point selection system can order/prioritize the candidate merge points based on longitudinal distance along the nominal path.”), wherein a distance of the road from the at least one location to a next junction of the road is ascertained (para. [0047], “… longitudinal distance along the nominal path…”), wherein the distance factor is ascertained based on the ascertained distance (see citation above, the longitudinal distance can be used as a filtering criteria.).
Regarding claim 7, Liu was modified by Fujimoto (e.g., in claim 1) such that the suitability measure of Liu is displayed in the manner taught by Fujimoto. However, Liu was not expressly modified in claim 1 to include the map database and road map features of Fujimoto. Notably, while Liu utilizes data from a map database, Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a road width factor, wherein a road width at the at least one location is ascertained, wherein the road width factor is ascertained based on the ascertained road width. However, a separate, but equally combinable, portion of Fujimoto teaches the foregoing limitation. For example, Fujimoto teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a road width factor (para. [0037], “For example, if the road width is two lanes or more, it can be regarded as a section suitable for overtaking.”), wherein a road width at the at least one location is ascertained (para. [0032], “[t]he map database stored in the HDD 9 is a database that stores various map data required to display road maps and background maps on the display device 7… Other attribute information stored includes the road type of the link, link length, road width, number of lanes, and driving regulation information such as whether overtaking is permitted, speed limit, vehicle width limit, vehicle height limit, one-way street, and whether parking is permitted.”), wherein the road width factor is ascertained based on the ascertained road width (sections of road with two or more lanes can be considered suitable for overtaking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the additional map features of Fujimoto (e.g., which are deemed relevant to identifying a safe location to merge and/or change lanes) into the mapping program of Liu in order to account for more details to identify an appropriate location to change lanes. The added map feature functions the same in Fujimoto as it would in Liu and provides the predictable result of providing for additional aspects to consider when determining a safe location to change lanes.
Regarding claim 9, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a road traffic hazard factor (Liu, para. [0036], “[t]he generated perception data can be utilized to predict the future motion of the object(s).”), wherein a distance of the road from the at least one location to a road traffic hazard location of a road traffic hazard affecting the road is ascertained (para. [0033], “[t]o help determine its position within the environment (and relative to these objects), the vehicle computing system can provide sensor data to the structured machine-learned model(s). In addition or alternatively, the autonomous vehicle can access map data (e.g., high definition map data, etc.) to determine the autonomous vehicle's current position relative to other objects in the world (e.g., bicycles, pedestrians, other vehicles, buildings, etc.), as well as map features such as, for example, lane boundaries, curbs, and so on., wherein the road traffic hazard factor is ascertained based on the ascertained distance (Liu, para. [0031], “[t]he autonomy computing system can include one or more systems that enable the autonomous vehicle to plan and/or follow a given route, receive sensor data about the environment, perceive objects within the vehicle's surrounding environment (e.g., other vehicles), predict the motion of the objects within the surrounding environment, and generate trajectories for the vehicle to follow based on the route/perceived objects/predicted object motion.”).
Regarding claim 10, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a traffic rules relating to overtaking factor (para. [0124], “[a] third type of speed profile can be associated with a situation in which the autonomous vehicle is targeting a speed for a particular distance (e.g., stop signs, traffic lights, gridlock, or the predicted movement of other actors within the environment).”), wherein traffic rules relating to overtaking that apply at the at least one location are ascertained (para. [0094], “[t]he vehicle computing system 110 can determine that the vehicle 105 can perform a certain action (e.g., pass an object, etc.) without increasing the potential risk to the vehicle 105 and/or violating any traffic laws (e.g., speed limits, lane boundaries, signage, etc.).”), wherein the traffic rules relating to overtaking factor is ascertained based on the traffic rules relating to overtaking that apply (see above citations).
Regarding claim 12, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein the factors relevant to overtaking (para. [0094], “[t]he vehicle computing system 110 can determine that the vehicle 105 can perform a certain action (e.g., pass an object, etc.) without increasing the potential risk to the vehicle 105 and/or violating any traffic laws (e.g., speed limits, lane boundaries, signage, etc.).”) are at least partly weighted with an individual weighting factor to ascertain appropriately weighted factors relevant to overtaking (para. [0094], “[t]he motion planning function 170C can implement an optimization algorithm, machine-learned model, etc. that considers cost data associated with a vehicle action as well as other objective functions (e.g., cost functions based on speed limits, traffic lights, etc.), if any, to determine optimized variables that make up the motion plan.” Examiner notes that cost functions and objective functions are methods of weighting parameters to be considered in an optimization problem), wherein the suitability measure for the at least one location is ascertained based on the weighted factors relevant to overtaking (para. [0094], “For instance, the vehicle computing system 110 can evaluate the predicted motion trajectories of one or more objects during its cost data analysis to help determine an optimized vehicle trajectory through the surrounding environment… In some implementations, the motion plan may define the vehicle's motion such that the vehicle 105 avoids the object(s), reduces speed to give more leeway to one or more of the object(s), proceeds cautiously, performs a stopping action, passes an object, queues behind/in front of an object, etc.”).
Regarding claim 14, Liu modified by Fujimoto teaches wherein real-time surroundings data describing current surroundings (sensor data 155 from sensors 135; para. [0085], “[t]he sensor data 155 can include image data (e.g., 2D camera data, video data, etc.), RADAR data, LIDAR data (e.g., 3D point cloud data, etc.), audio data, and/or other types of data. The vehicle 105 can also include other sensors configured to acquire data associated with the vehicle 105. For example, the vehicle 105 can include inertial measurement unit(s), wheel odometry devices, and/or other sensors.”) at the at least one location are received, wherein the suitability measure is ascertained based on the real-time surroundings data (as noted in claim 1, the sensor data 155 is used by vehicle computing system 110 to perform the method of FIG. 8 which includes determining a current pose for the autonomous vehicle in step 804 and generating a suitability classification in step 812.).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses [a] device (system 100 including vehicle computing system 110) configured to map at least one location on a road suitable for overtaking (vehicle computing system 110 is used to perform the method of FIGs. 8 and 9), the device configured to: ascertain a plurality of factors (map data 160, sensor data 155, and position system 165 which are included in FIG. 1; para. [0037], “[t]he vehicle computing system can use the perception data, prediction data, map data, and/or other data to generate a motion plan for the vehicle.”) of the road relevant to overtaking (See FIG. 8 which is a method directed to generating, analyzing, and selecting a trajectory from multiple trajectories which are associated with individual merge points to achieve a merger in a lane change region; the data utilized, and the method performed, in FIG. 8 is collected and processed by the vehicle computing system 110 in FIG. 1 which includes map data 160, sensor data 155, and position data 165); ascertain a suitability measure (FIG. 8; Step 812; generating a suitability classification for each candidate basis path where the candidate basis paths are each associated with a merge point as noted in steps 808 and 810) for at least one location on the road which indicates a measure of suitability for overtaking at the at least one location based on the ascertained factors relevant to overtaking (Step 812 of FIG. 8 is performed by vehicle computing system 110 for each merge point and associated candidate basis path).
Lui discloses the vehicle computing system 110 may include one or more vehicle user devices 180 which may include a display “viewable by a user of the vehicle 105 that is located in the front of the vehicle 105 (e.g., driver's seat, front passenger seat).” (para. [0098]) However, Lui may not explicitly disclose entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map representing the road. Fujimoto, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to an “overtaking support device,” for supporting driver operations (e.g., merging, lane changing, and overtaking) teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Fujimoto teaches:
“[t]he display device 7 is used to display a road map, the current position of the vehicle, the driving route, the positions of turning-off areas (to be described later), overtaking zones, etc., and is configured, for example, by a color liquid crystal display.” (para. [0026]);
“[t]he map database stored in the HDD 9 is a database that stores various map data required to display road maps and background maps on the display device 7, and to superimpose the vehicle's current position, driving route, route guidance information, etc. on top of these.” (para. [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the display device of Liu according to the method of Fujimoto where the display device located in the vehicle of Liu would be used to display the suitability classification for each candidate basis path and associated merge point determined by Liu according to the teaching of Fujimoto. The combination combines the respective elements in a known manner where each element performs the same function separately as in combination. The combination would yield the predictable result of displaying the results of the analysis performed by Liu in order to provide the user/driver with the results of the analysis.
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses [a] non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program (computing device 1005 of FIG. 10 which functions as the computing device for vehicle computing system 110) including instructions (instructions 1025, see FIG. 10) for [determining] at least one location on a road suitable for overtaking, the instructions, when executed by a computer, causing the computer to perform the following steps (see FIGs. 1, 8, and 9 of Liu): ascertaining a plurality of factors (map data 160, sensor data 155, and position system 165 which are included in FIG. 1; para. [0037], “[t]he vehicle computing system can use the perception data, prediction data, map data, and/or other data to generate a motion plan for the vehicle.”) of the road relevant to overtaking (See FIG. 8 which is a method directed to generating, analyzing, and selecting a trajectory from multiple trajectories which are associated with individual merge points to achieve a merger in a lane change region; the data utilized, and the method performed, in FIG. 8 is collected and processed by the vehicle computing system 110 in FIG. 1 which includes map data 160, sensor data 155, and position data 165); ascertaining a suitability measure (FIG. 8; Step 812; generating a suitability classification for each candidate basis path where the candidate basis paths are each associated with a merge point as noted in steps 808 and 810) for at least one location on the road which indicates a measure of suitability for overtaking at the at least one location based on the ascertained factors relevant to overtaking (Step 812 of FIG. 8 is performed by vehicle computing system 110 for each merge point and associated candidate basis path).
Lui discloses the vehicle computing system 110 may include one or more vehicle user devices 180 which may include a display “viewable by a user of the vehicle 105 that is located in the front of the vehicle 105 (e.g., driver's seat, front passenger seat).” (para. [0098]) However, Lui may not explicitly disclose entering the ascertained suitability measure into a digital road map representing the road. Fujimoto, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to an “overtaking support device,” for supporting driver operations (e.g., merging, lane changing, and overtaking) teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Fujimoto teaches:
“[t]he display device 7 is used to display a road map, the current position of the vehicle, the driving route, the positions of turning-off areas (to be described later), overtaking zones, etc., and is configured, for example, by a color liquid crystal display.” (para. [0026]);
“[t]he map database stored in the HDD 9 is a database that stores various map data required to display road maps and background maps on the display device 7, and to superimpose the vehicle's current position, driving route, route guidance information, etc. on top of these.” (para. [0032])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the display device of Liu according to the method of Fujimoto where the display device located in the vehicle of Liu would be used to display the suitability classification for each candidate basis path and associated merge point determined by Liu according to the teaching of Fujimoto. The combination combines the respective elements in a known manner where each element performs the same function separately as in combination. The combination would yield the predictable result of displaying the results of the analysis performed by Liu in order to provide the user/driver with the results of the analysis.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Liu et al., hereinafter “Liu,” (US 20220083065 A1) and Published Japanese Patent Application to Fujimoto (JP 2006293615 A), as applied above to claim 1, in further view of Published US Patent Application to Spika et al., herein after “Spika,” (US 20210163009 A1).
Liu modified by Fujimoto may not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3 where a visual range and an associated visual range factor is utilized in ascertaining the locations where a lane change may take place. However, Spika, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a driving system which assists in overtaking maneuvers, teaches the deficient limitations.
For example, Spika teaches a visual range factor (“status probability,” related to the visibility data, as discussed in para. [0062] which states “[i]f the driver only has limited visibility, e.g. at a certain location along the route, the probability of the passing maneuver statuses b) and c) is very low, because presumably the driver would not initiate a passing maneuver at this location. Accordingly, the status probabilities for the passing maneuver statuses b) and c) (and potentially d)) are lower.), wherein a visual range, including a horizontal visual range or a vertical visual range (para. [0053], “visibility information can be stored in the topographic environment map, and/or visibility information can be assessed on the basis of the topographic environment map, wherein the visibility information indicates the current or future quality of visibility for the driver of the vehicle in a respective upcoming section of the route for each position in the topographic environment map.” See also para. [0055]—[0060].), at the at least one location is ascertained (para. [0040], “[i]n some examples, passing priority zones may be stored in the environment map. Passing priority zones include places and/or areas in which passing occurs frequently. These places can be sections of a route that have multiple lanes and good visibility, and which remain straight for a longer distance, such that a driver can always see and assess the current traffic conditions during a passing maneuver, and there is enough space to pass.”), wherein the visual range factor is ascertained based on the ascertained visual range (see para. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have add the visibility data of Spika into the driving assistance model of Liu as modified by Fujimoto. The visibility data of Spika is being utilized in a substantially similar driving assistance model as that of Liu as modified by Fujimoto, where both models are directed to assessing the ability to change lanes. As such, the visibility data performs the same function both separately and as combined into Liu and Fujimoto where the combination creates the predictable result of a driving assistance model which accounts for a visibility component. Moreover, Spika provides motivation for the combination insofar as including the visibility data improves the ability to execute a passing maneuver safely. For example, Spika states “this assistance information 7-2 includes information that enables the driver to carry out a safe passing maneuver, i.e., avoiding risky situations..” (Spika, para. [0157]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Liu et al., hereinafter “Liu,” (US 20220083065 A1) and Published Japanese Patent Application to Fujimoto (JP 2006293615 A), as applied above to claim 1, in further view of Chinese Patent Application to Bing-guang et al., herein after “Bingguang,” (CN 110194169 A) an English translation of which is provided herewith.
Regarding claim 8, while Liu modified by Fujimoto both teach multiple features to consider when determining a safe location to change lanes, Liu modified by Fujimoto does not teach wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a coefficient of sliding friction factor, wherein a coefficient of sliding friction of a lane of the road (4 at the one location is ascertained, wherein the coefficient of sliding friction is ascertained based on the ascertained coefficient of sliding friction. However, Bingguang, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a method of assisting a vehicle in changing lanes, teaches the deficient limitation.
For example, Bingguang teaches wherein the plurality of factors relevant to overtaking include a coefficient of sliding friction factor (para. [0039], “the longitudinal danger distance boundary values and longitudinal safety distance boundary values based on the friction coefficient of the current road.”), wherein a coefficient of sliding friction of a lane of the road at the one location is ascertained (para. [0029], “[d]etermine the coefficient of sliding friction based on the road friction index and road surface environment.”), wherein the coefficient of sliding friction is ascertained based on the ascertained coefficient of sliding friction (see citation of para. [0039] as detailed above where the two danger distance boundary values (e.g., considered the sliding friction factors) are determined from the coefficient of sliding friction.).
Bingguang at para. [0004] states “when changing lanes to overtake, drivers mainly rely on observing the road conditions behind them through the side mirrors and judging whether it is safe to change lanes based on experience. However, the safe distance for changing lanes varies depending on the road conditions and the relative speed between the vehicle and the vehicle behind.” Bingguang at para. [0039] further states “[t]his invention establishes longitudinal danger distance boundary values, longitudinal safety distance boundary values, and lateral safety distance models, and calculates the longitudinal danger distance boundary values and longitudinal safety distance boundary values based on the friction coefficient of the current road. These values are then compared with the longitudinal and lateral distances between the vehicle and the vehicles behind it to determine the safety of lane changing, thereby realizing lane changing assistance and improving the safety of lane changing.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the danger distance boundary values of Bingguang into the driving assistance model of Liu as modified by Fujimoto in order to provide for additional safety factor considerations for the driving assistance model. Bingguang provides motivation for the combination in acknowledging that utilizing the danger distance boundary values increases the ability to safely operate the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 are not rejected by the prior art of record; however, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Published US Patent Application to Shoemaker et al., (US 20250058803 A1) discloses an autonomous driving method directed to merging and/or changing lanes which utilizes a perception sensor and a cost function to determine an appropriate action; and
Published US Patent Application to Froeberg (US 20090312942 A1) discloses a road evaluation system which incorporates multiple features considered in the overtaking operation of the instant claims including road curvature and lane width. Many of elements considered in the overtaking operation constitute road data commonly collected and stored in digital maps used for navigation purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676