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 is the First Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/20/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an information obtainer configured to obtain” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “obtain area information about a defensive driving area”. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by “area information”. For example, is the “area information” information related the spatial extent of the defensive driving area (e.g. a location/boundary of the defensive driving area) or is it a surrounding information inside the defensive driving area? Further, it is unclear to the Examiner what the metes and bounds are of what would and would not be “a defensive driving area” and “area information about a defensive driving area”. Furthermore, while the specification provides examples of the area information about the defense driving area, it specifically states that it is merely an example and is not limited thereto, so it is unclear exactly what these terms encompass.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 11, Kueperkoch discloses A vehicle
driving control device, comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to obtain surrounding information about a vehicle; ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control. A roadway has a driving lane 101 in which a vehicle 100, which is hereinafter referred to as an ego vehicle, drives, along with an adjacent lane 102 and a further adjacent lane 103. The ego vehicle 100 has environment sensor system 110 for detecting the traffic environment, including an adjacent lane. This environment sensor system 100 can comprise, for example, radar sensors and/or ultrasonic sensors and/or lidar sensors and/or video sensors and/or camera sensors.”)
an information obtainer configured to obtain area information about a defensive driving area during adaptive cruise control (ACC) of the vehicle; and ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control… Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, [0040] “a virtual vehicle 260 is determined in the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100, which is located at a distance from the merge zone 300, which corresponds to the distance s of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 from the merge zone 300. The vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 is “projected,” so to speak, onto the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100. The result of this “projection” is the virtual vehicle 260, which is now located ahead of the ego vehicle 100 in the lane 101. This virtual vehicle 260 is given the same object properties as the real vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. This means that the size, type and speed of the virtual vehicle 260 correspond to those of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. In addition, this virtual vehicle 260 receives the information that it is virtual, and the distance s to the merge zone 300 is assigned thereto”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”) a controller configured to control at least one of a velocity of the vehicle and a driving route of the vehicle based on at least one of the surrounding information and the area information. ([0037] “a distance control in relation to slower vehicles driving ahead, which is also known as ACC: automatic cruise control… Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”)
Regarding claim 2, and similarly with respect to claim 12, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
control device of claim 1, wherein the area information includes information about an area including a lane merge point, a lane diverge point, a tunnel entry point, a tunnel exit point, a road widen point, a road narrow point, or a section including a predetermined number of lanes or more. (Figures 3-5, [0040] “a virtual vehicle 260 is determined in the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100, which is located at a distance from the merge zone 300, which corresponds to the distance s of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 from the merge zone 300. The vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121 is “projected,” so to speak, onto the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100. The result of this “projection” is the virtual vehicle 260, which is now located ahead of the ego vehicle 100 in the lane 101. This virtual vehicle 260 is given the same object properties as the real vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. This means that the size, type and speed of the virtual vehicle 260 correspond to those of the vehicle 200 in the merging lane 121. In addition, this virtual vehicle 260 receives the information that it is virtual, and the distance s to the merge zone 300 is assigned thereto”, and [0050] “a vehicle 200 is driving in a lane 121 ahead of the ego vehicle 100, and an intention for this vehicle 200 to change lanes to the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 can be predicted or is recognized by the environment sensor system 110, such as a turn signal. Even in this general case, in which there is no separation of the driving lanes, a virtual vehicle 260 can be defined, which is projected, so to speak, onto the adjacent lane at right angles. This virtual vehicle 260 can be taken into account in the assistance systems of the ego vehicle 100. In particular, the method can also be applied to lane changes from both sides of the ego vehicle 100.”)
Regarding claim 3, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
control device of claim 1, wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to secure a maximum safe distance according to adaptive cruise control in the defensive driving area based on the area information. ([0037] “Depending on this environment sensor system 110, the distance of a vehicle 120 driving ahead in the driving lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 is calculated. This allows a target distance 111, also known as the safety distance, to be calculated and automatically adjusted by accelerating or braking the ego vehicle 100.”, and [0043] “If the virtual vehicle 260 is not driving slower than the ego vehicle 100 or a potential collision is anticipated to occur within the merge zone 300, one of the following steps is initiated:”, [0044] “The ego vehicle 100 switches to the adjacent lane 102 if there is a sufficiently large gap in this lane, which is determined with the aid of the environment sensor system 110 of the ego vehicle 100, which also detects the adjacent lane 102.”, and [0045] “Alternatively, a distance control is effected. This means that the driving speed of the ego vehicle 100 is adjusted (increased or decreased) so that a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle 260 is established.”)
Regarding claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
control device of claim 1, wherein the controller changes a driving lane of the vehicle when entering the defensive driving area based on the area information. ([0022] “However, if there is a probability of collision in the merge zone, one of the following scenarios is determined: [0023] A lane change to the adjacent lane of the ego vehicle is effected if the environment sensor system determines a sufficiently large gap in the adjacent lane.”, [0024] “If no lane change is possible: the speed of the ego vehicle is adjusted to create or maintain a suitable safety distance from the virtual vehicle in the driving lane.”, [0050] “a vehicle 200 is driving in a lane 121 ahead of the ego vehicle 100, and an intention for this vehicle 200 to change lanes to the lane 101 of the ego vehicle 100 can be predicted or is recognized by the environment sensor system 110, such as a turn signal. Even in this general case, in which there is no separation of the driving lanes, a virtual vehicle 260 can be defined, which is projected, so to speak, onto the adjacent lane at right angles. This virtual vehicle 260 can be taken into account in the assistance systems of the ego vehicle 100. In particular, the method can also be applied to lane changes from both sides of the ego vehicle 100.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Jeong Ho Gi (KR 20000055183 A).
Regarding claim 4, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the velocity
of the vehicle to further secure an additional distance to the maximum safe distance.
Jeong Ho Gi teaches wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to further
secure an additional distance to the maximum safe distance. (Page 5 lines 6-17 “Performing an ACC operation mode for maintaining a vehicle speed set when the ACC operation mode setting key is on while maintaining a predetermined safety distance with the front vehicle when the turn signal operation switch is in an off state; When the turn indicator operation switch is in the ON state of the ACC operation mode setting key, the lane change mode is provided to adjust the speed of the vehicle according to the operation of the accelerator pedal within the maximum safety distance and the minimum safety distance with the front vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date
of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate safety distance determination as taught by Jeong Ho Gi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to secure a safety distance with the front vehicle/surrounding vehicles.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Lee Sang Ho (KR 101511865 B1).
Regarding claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller controls the velocity
of the vehicle to secure a safety space on a side of the vehicle when a surrounding vehicle is present on the side of the vehicle, based on the surrounding information.
Lee Sang Ho teaches wherein the controller controls the velocity of the vehicle to secure a
safety space on a side of the vehicle when a surrounding vehicle is present on the side of the vehicle, based on the surrounding information. (Page 4 lines 10-19 “When the adaptive cruise control apparatus receives a plurality of adjacent vehicle driving information, the adaptive cruise control apparatus can identify the adjacent vehicle that is likely to collide with the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control apparatus can prioritize the position of the adjacent vehicle with the highest possibility of collision and adjust the speed of the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control device can predict a travel route of a vehicle that may collide with the vehicle. The adaptive cruise control device can adjust the speed of the vehicle so that the distance between the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle satisfies the allowable distance range. The adaptive cruise control device can adjust the speed of the vehicle so as to secure a safety distance from a plurality of adjacent vehicles.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate safety distance determination as taught by Lee Sang Ho for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to “secure a safety distance from a plurality of adjacent vehicles”. (Lee Sang Ho, page 4 line 19)
Claims 7-9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Horiguchi (US 20230202479 A1).
Regarding claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller changes the driving
lane of the vehicle to a lane other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the defensive driving area includes a lane merge point or a lane diverge point.
Horiguchi teaches wherein the controller changes the driving lane of the vehicle to a lane
other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the defensive driving area includes a lane merge point or a lane diverge point. ([0075] “where the traveling ECU 14 determines that a lane change is to be made and determines that a lane change to the adjacent lane is possible, the traveling ECU 14 may set, for example, the middle of the adjacent lane to which the lane change is to be made as a target lateral position.”, figures 10 and 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate lane change determination as taught by Horiguchi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to make a lane change safely.
Regarding claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller outputs a proposal
for a lane change to a lane other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the defensive driving area includes a lane merge point or a lane diverge point.
Horiguchi teaches wherein the controller outputs a proposal for a lane change to a lane
other than a lane joined by another lane or a lane where another lane is branched when the defensive driving area includes a lane merge point or a lane diverge point. ([0105] “the traveling ECU 14 may check, in step S101, whether a lane change is to be made at present. The traveling ECU 14 may determine whether a lane change is to be made on the basis of, for example, whether the turn signal switch is operated by the driver, whether the vehicle speed Vl of the preceding vehicle is lower than the set vehicle speed Vs of the own vehicle M in a predetermined degree, or whether a subsequent vehicle with the vehicle speed Vf higher than the vehicle speed V of the own vehicle M in a predetermined degree is approaching the own vehicle M.”, [0105] “If the traveling ECU 14 determines in step S101 that a lane change is to be made (step S101: YES), the traveling ECU 14 may cause the flow to proceed to step S102.”, [0106] “In step S102, the traveling ECU 14 may recognize an adjacent lane to which the lane change is to be made. For example, the traveling ECU 14 may recognize lane lines that define the adjacent lane, on the basis of the traveling environment information. The traveling ECU 14 may also recognize whether an object such as another vehicle is present on the adjacent lane.”, [0107] “the traveling ECU 14 may check whether lane change conditions are satisfied. For example, the traveling ECU 14 may determine whether a lane change is possible on the basis of whether a section on the road where the own vehicle M is traveling is a section in which a lane change is allowed, and whether another vehicle is present on the adjacent lane to which the lane change is to be made.”, [0109] “If the traveling ECU 14 determines in step S103 that the lane change conditions are satisfied (step S103: YES), the traveling ECU 14 may cause the flow to proceed to step S104.”, [0110] “In step S104, the traveling ECU 14 may set the target lateral position to be used when the own vehicle M makes the lane change. For example, the traveling ECU 14 may set, as the target lateral position, the middle of the adjacent lane calculated on the basis of the left and right lane lines that define the adjacent lane.”, [0111] “In subsequent step S105, the traveling ECU 14 may set the target route that allows the own vehicle M to make the lane change to the target lateral position.”, figures 10 and 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate lane change determination as taught by Horiguchi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to make a lane change safely.
Regarding claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 19, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the information obtainer obtains the area information through communication from an external device or obtains the area information based on map data or GPS information.
Horiguchi teaches wherein the information obtainer obtains the area information through communication from an external device or obtains the area information based on map data or GPS information. ([0054] “the road map DB 36b may thus serve, together with the GNSS sensor 36a, as the “traveling environment recognizer” that recognizes the traveling environment information regarding the outside of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate road map data base as taught by Horiguchi for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to accurately recognize the traveling environment information regarding the outside of the vehicle.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueperkoch (US 20240308507 A1) in view of Jiao (US 20210295067 A1).
Regarding claim 10, and similarly with respect to claim 20, Kueperkoch discloses The vehicle
driving control device of claim 1,
However, Kueperkoch fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller recognizes a traffic
sign from the surrounding information and obtains the area information based on the traffic sign.
Jiao teaches wherein the controller recognizes a traffic sign from the surrounding information and obtains the area information based on the traffic sign. ([0031] “, based on image data captured by the cameras 106, the vehicle 101 can adjust vehicle speed based on speed limit signs posted on roadways. For example, the vehicle 101 can maintain a constant, safe distance from a vehicle ahead (e.g., adaptive cruise control). In this example, the vehicle 101 maintains this safe distance by constantly adjusting its vehicle speed to that of the vehicle ahead.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Kueperkoch to incorporate traffic sign recognition as taught by Jiao for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to adjust its speed based on road signs and “maintain(ing) a constant, safe distance from a vehicle ahead (e.g. adaptive cruise control)”, increasing safety. (Jiao, [0031])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666