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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 12/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/27/2024.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-5 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recites “easy then”. This is unusual wording that appears to read as “easier than”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recites “overtaking an other vehicle which interrupted between”. This is unusual wording that appears to mean “cut-in”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “easy” and “eas(ier) than” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the examiner has interpreted easy to mean any driving situation where the host vehicle is closer, visible, has a higher confidence value or any other metric that could provide more reliable data to the following vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al. (US 2025/0155890), herein Wang in view of Wiberg et. al. (US 2021/0294351), herein Wiberg.
Regarding claim 1:
Wang teaches:
A following travel control device (the controlling part translates the decisions into specific control instructions, allowing the vehicle to drive autonomously, including behaviors such as accelerating, decelerating, and making lateral adjustments and turns [0002]) comprising a processor (fig. 2, computing device 14) configured to:
recognize a preceding vehicle (generating at least an environmental status information, such as an obstacle information or a leading vehicle identification information [0033]);
perform following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (The vehicle platoon employing autonomous driving technology consists of several vehicles moving in a queue, offering more efficient transportation compared to a single vehicle operating autonomously. This has become one of the most in-demand markets in recent years. In addition to implementing the sensing, decision-making, and control aspects mentioned above, the vehicle platoon also includes coordination technology within the vehicles, encompassing complex integrated technologies like communication between vehicles, relative distance sensing, and collective decision-making and control [0003]);
make the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]); and
interrupt the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (when the cut-in situation occurs, the member vehicle 10B that is intervened by the external vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the overtaken vehicle 10B’) sends a cut-in notification to the other vehicles 10 in the platoon 1 through the communication device 11, to inform the captain vehicle 10A and other member vehicles 10B about the cut-in situation, and a general following process is executed (step S3021). The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]), continue to recognize the preceding vehicle (When the overtaken vehicle 10B′ determines whether it can catch up with the leading vehicle at the current speed command, it calculates a time gap minus the values of the distance between the overtaken vehicle 10B′ and the leading vehicle divided by a maximum speed value, and determines if the outcome is less than a predetermined time. [0072]), and generate the target travel trajectory which can restart the following travel control (If it is less than the predetermined time, it indicates that the overtaken vehicle 10B′ is able to catch up with the leading vehicle, and the platoon forming request can be directly conducted [0072]).
Wiberg also teaches:
perform following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (controlling the follower vehicle so as to follow the lead vehicle, in the follower trajectory [0019]);
make the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The follower vehicle might follow the lead vehicle by means of autonomous vehicle following [0019]); and
interrupt the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (The follower vehicles 2, 3 will not follow a backup trajectory, unless a predetermined condition S5 is determined, i.e. established to exist. The predetermined condition could be any of a plurality of conditions, including lost V2V communication with the lead vehicle 1, an operational parameter, e.g. of a follower vehicle 2, 3, being below a predetermined safety threshold level, and a signal sent by the lead vehicle, representing a message that the follower trajectory should be abandoned [0083]),
Wang does not explicitly teach, however Wiberg teaches:
generate a target travel trajectory of the host vehicle which draws a travel track different from the travel track of the preceding vehicle (generating, using the surroundings data, a backup trajectory, which is different from the follower trajectory [0016]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include the teachings as taught by Wiberg with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling cooperative control of multiple vehicles. Wiberg also teaches that “there is still room for improvement of known platooning strategies. In particular, it is desired to increase the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. Also, it would be beneficial to decrease the complexity of vehicles in platooning, while increasing the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. [Wiberg, 0012]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Wang in view of Wiberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claims is dependent.
Wang further teaches:
determine whether recognition of the preceding vehicle is easy (When the cut-in situation is ruled out, the computing device 14 of the overtaken vehicle 10B′ determines whether the overtaken vehicle 10B′ is able to catch up with a leading vehicle of the vehicles with the current speed command (S3023) [0071]), and
perform the following travel control by increasing a distance between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle (The main goal is to maintain an appropriate traveling distance with the external vehicle 40 until the external vehicle 40 leaves the target driving lane of the platoon 1 [0073]) when it is determined that the recognition of the preceding vehicle is easy (fig. 11, step S3023 -YES) than when it is determined that the recognition of the preceding vehicle is not easy (fig. 11, step S3023 – NO; examiner notes that the deceleration request in step S3025 would reduce the following distance.).
Regarding claim 4:
Wang teaches:
A following travel control method (a vehicle platoon intersection decision-making system and method [0001]) comprising:
recognizing a preceding vehicle (generating at least an environmental status information, such as an obstacle information or a leading vehicle identification information [0033]);
performing following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (The vehicle platoon employing autonomous driving technology consists of several vehicles moving in a queue, offering more efficient transportation compared to a single vehicle operating autonomously. This has become one of the most in-demand markets in recent years. In addition to implementing the sensing, decision-making, and control aspects mentioned above, the vehicle platoon also includes coordination technology within the vehicles, encompassing complex integrated technologies like communication between vehicles, relative distance sensing, and collective decision-making and control [0003]);
making the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]); and
interrupting the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (when the cut-in situation occurs, the member vehicle 10B that is intervened by the external vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the overtaken vehicle 10B’) sends a cut-in notification to the other vehicles 10 in the platoon 1 through the communication device 11, to inform the captain vehicle 10A and other member vehicles 10B about the cut-in situation, and a general following process is executed (step S3021). The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]), continue to recognize the preceding vehicle (When the overtaken vehicle 10B′ determines whether it can catch up with the leading vehicle at the current speed command, it calculates a time gap minus the values of the distance between the overtaken vehicle 10B′ and the leading vehicle divided by a maximum speed value, and determines if the outcome is less than a predetermined time. [0072]), and generate the target travel trajectory which can restart the following travel control (If it is less than the predetermined time, it indicates that the overtaken vehicle 10B′ is able to catch up with the leading vehicle, and the platoon forming request can be directly conducted [0072]).
Wiberg also teaches:
performing following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (controlling the follower vehicle so as to follow the lead vehicle, in the follower trajectory [0019]);
making the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The follower vehicle might follow the lead vehicle by means of autonomous vehicle following [0019]); and
interrupting the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (The follower vehicles 2, 3 will not follow a backup trajectory, unless a predetermined condition S5 is determined, i.e. established to exist. The predetermined condition could be any of a plurality of conditions, including lost V2V communication with the lead vehicle 1, an operational parameter, e.g. of a follower vehicle 2, 3, being below a predetermined safety threshold level, and a signal sent by the lead vehicle, representing a message that the follower trajectory should be abandoned [0083]),
Wang does not explicitly teach, however Wiberg teaches:
generating a target travel trajectory of the host vehicle which draws a travel track different from the travel track of the preceding vehicle (generating, using the surroundings data, a backup trajectory, which is different from the follower trajectory [0016]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include the teachings as taught by Wiberg with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling cooperative control of multiple vehicles. Wiberg also teaches that “there is still room for improvement of known platooning strategies. In particular, it is desired to increase the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. Also, it would be beneficial to decrease the complexity of vehicles in platooning, while increasing the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. [Wiberg, 0012]”.
Regarding claim 5:
Wang teaches:
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process (The control unit, or the data storage may comprise a memory [0024]) comprising:
recognizing a preceding vehicle (generating at least an environmental status information, such as an obstacle information or a leading vehicle identification information [0033]);
performing following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (The vehicle platoon employing autonomous driving technology consists of several vehicles moving in a queue, offering more efficient transportation compared to a single vehicle operating autonomously. This has become one of the most in-demand markets in recent years. In addition to implementing the sensing, decision-making, and control aspects mentioned above, the vehicle platoon also includes coordination technology within the vehicles, encompassing complex integrated technologies like communication between vehicles, relative distance sensing, and collective decision-making and control [0003]);
making the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]); and
interrupting the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (when the cut-in situation occurs, the member vehicle 10B that is intervened by the external vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the overtaken vehicle 10B’) sends a cut-in notification to the other vehicles 10 in the platoon 1 through the communication device 11, to inform the captain vehicle 10A and other member vehicles 10B about the cut-in situation, and a general following process is executed (step S3021). The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]), continue to recognize the preceding vehicle (When the overtaken vehicle 10B′ determines whether it can catch up with the leading vehicle at the current speed command, it calculates a time gap minus the values of the distance between the overtaken vehicle 10B′ and the leading vehicle divided by a maximum speed value, and determines if the outcome is less than a predetermined time. [0072]), and generate the target travel trajectory which can restart the following travel control (If it is less than the predetermined time, it indicates that the overtaken vehicle 10B′ is able to catch up with the leading vehicle, and the platoon forming request can be directly conducted [0072]).
Wiberg also teaches:
performing following travel control in which a host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle (controlling the follower vehicle so as to follow the lead vehicle, in the follower trajectory [0019]);
making the host vehicle travel autonomously along the target travel trajectory (The follower vehicle might follow the lead vehicle by means of autonomous vehicle following [0019]); and
interrupting the following travel control when circumstances in which the following travel control cannot be continued occur while the following travel control is performed (The follower vehicles 2, 3 will not follow a backup trajectory, unless a predetermined condition S5 is determined, i.e. established to exist. The predetermined condition could be any of a plurality of conditions, including lost V2V communication with the lead vehicle 1, an operational parameter, e.g. of a follower vehicle 2, 3, being below a predetermined safety threshold level, and a signal sent by the lead vehicle, representing a message that the follower trajectory should be abandoned [0083]),
Wang does not explicitly teach, however Wiberg teaches:
generating a target travel trajectory of the host vehicle which draws a travel track different from the travel track of the preceding vehicle (generating, using the surroundings data, a backup trajectory, which is different from the follower trajectory [0016]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include the teachings as taught by Wiberg with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling cooperative control of multiple vehicles. Wiberg also teaches that “there is still room for improvement of known platooning strategies. In particular, it is desired to increase the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. Also, it would be beneficial to decrease the complexity of vehicles in platooning, while increasing the safety in connection with vehicle platooning. [Wiberg, 0012]”.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al. (US 2025/0155890), herein Wang in view of Wiberg et. al. (US 2021/0294351), herein Wiberg in further view of Sachs et. al. (US 2019/0213882), herein Sachs.
Regarding claim 3:
Wang in view of Wiberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claims is dependent.
Wang further teaches:
wherein the target travel trajectory is a travel trajectory of the host vehicle for overtaking an other vehicle which interrupted between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle (when the cut-in situation occurs, the member vehicle 10B that is intervened by the external vehicle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the overtaken vehicle 10B’) sends a cut-in notification to the other vehicles 10 in the platoon 1 through the communication device 11, to inform the captain vehicle 10A and other member vehicles 10B about the cut-in situation, and a general following process is executed (step S3021). The general following process refers to the overtaken vehicle 10B′ continuing to follow the external vehicle 40 [0070]),
Sachs also teaches:
wherein the target travel trajectory is a travel trajectory of the host vehicle for overtaking an other vehicle (automated overtaking [0003])
Wang in view of Wiberg does not explicitly teach, however Sachs teaches:
the processor is configured to acquire information indicating a situation of the host vehicle and determine whether overtaking of the other vehicle by the host vehicle is possible based on the information indicating the situation of the host vehicle (V2X based services may include road hazard warnings, advanced driver assistance services, (cooperative) collision avoidance services, increased situational awareness, cooperative sensing, intelligent traffic management (e.g., via traffic signal timing and priority, optimal speed advice, and/or real-time traffic routing), emergency vehicle alerts, see-through video transfer from vehicles blocking sight, cooperative adaptive cruise control, high density platooning, cooperative lane merge and lane change, and/or automated overtaking [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang and Wiberg to include the teachings as taught by Sachs with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling cooperative control of multiple vehicles. Sachs also teaches the benefits of “Advanced V2X functionality may support semi-autonomous/autonomous driving where cars either collaboratively determine their driving maneuvers (e.g., by exchanging intended trajectories), or where human drivers are assisted with enhanced situation awareness from information shared among vehicles, road users and/or transport infrastructure. [Sachs, 0003]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda (US 10,845,813) discloses A route setting method capable of causing a host vehicle to continuously follow traveling tracks of other vehicles including a preceding vehicle so as to travel stably uses a peripheral vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle to detect positions of other vehicles traveling around the host vehicle, and a controller for setting a route of the host vehicle according to traveling tracks of the other vehicles based on histories of positions of the other vehicles, the method including calculating a displaced amount of traveling tracks of the preceding vehicle specified from the other vehicles, and setting the route of the host vehicle according to traveling tracks of another vehicle different from the preceding vehicle when the displaced amount of the traveling tracks of the preceding vehicle is a threshold or greater.
Jalaliyazdi (US 2024/0140426) discloses A driver assistance system in a host vehicle is provided. The driver assistance system is configured to: track a plurality of obstacles in front of the host vehicle; receive host vehicle driver selection of a follow operating mode for the driver assistance system via a human machine interface (HMI); identify a candidate lead vehicle from the plurality of tracked obstacles; provide, via the HMI, a line of sight view in front of the host vehicle that includes the candidate lead vehicle; receive host vehicle driver selection of the candidate lead vehicle as a lead vehicle to follow; adjust a desired trajectory calculated by the driver assistance system to obtain and maintain a desired headway between the lead vehicle and the host vehicle; and generate control signals for vehicle actuators to control the host vehicle to follow the desired trajectory to follow the lead vehicle.
Churay (US 2024/0025450) discloses Vehicles and related systems and methods are provided for controlling a vehicle in an autonomous operating mode. One method involves a controller associated with a vehicle identifying a visual attention state associated with a driver of the vehicle based at least in part on output of an imaging device onboard the vehicle, determining, based at least in part on the visual attention state, a driver lane preference corresponding to an adjacent lane in a visual attention direction relative to a current lane of travel for the vehicle, adjusting a priority associated with the adjacent lane corresponding to the driver lane preference and autonomously operating one or more actuators onboard the vehicle to initiate maneuvering the vehicle from the current lane in a manner that is influenced by the adjusted priority associated with the adjacent lane.
Cho (US 2022/0266830) discloses A driving assist device includes a camera and a controller. The camera detects the presence of another vehicle ahead of a host vehicle. The controller sets a detection field of the camera. The controller determines that another vehicle has cut in front of the host vehicle if a degree to which the other vehicle has entered into the detection field exceeds or equals a first prescribed value when the host vehicle is traveling, or the other vehicle has cut in front of the host vehicle if the degree exceeds or equals a second prescribed value that is smaller than the first prescribed value when the host vehicle is stopped.
Solar (US 2022/0105941) discloses A vehicular vision system includes a camera disposed at a vehicle and viewing exterior of the vehicle. The system, responsive to processing by an image processor of image data captured by the camera, determines presence of a leading vehicle ahead of the equipped vehicle and travelling in the same lane as the equipped vehicle. The system, via processing by the image processor of image data captured by the camera, determines an indication at the leading vehicle indicative of a safeness of a passing maneuver by the equipped vehicle. The indication is representative of a determination by the leading vehicle that the safeness of the passing maneuver exceeds a threshold safeness level. The system, based on the determined indication, at least in part controls operation of the equipped vehicle to overtake and pass the determined leading vehicle.
Ishikawa (US 2016/0327947) discloses Automated drive assisting devices, methods, and programs acquire position specifying information for specifying a vehicle position during travel, and acquire a continuity degree that represents a degree to which automated drive can be continued on the basis of the position specifying information acquired during the automated drive. The devices, methods, and programs determine whether the automated drive can be continued on the basis of the acquired continuity degree, and determine vehicle control information for controlling a vehicle such that the continuity degree becomes higher on the basis of the acquired position specifying information in the case where it is determined that the automated drive cannot be continued. The devices, methods, and programs output the determined vehicle control information to a vehicle control device that controls the vehicle.
Lu (Modeling of Driver Cut-in Behavior Towards a Platoon - NPL) discloses A vehicle platoon is a group of vehicles driving together with a harmonized speed and a short inter-vehicle gap by using vehicle automation and vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Platoons have to share road with human-driven vehicles (HDVs) and can only be applied in heterogeneous traffic flow for a long period. Driver cut-in behavior (DCB) towards a platoon can be frequently expected in such driving context. In this paper, to understand and simulate such behavior, we propose a platoon oriented cut-in behavior (POCB) model by fusing a lateral and a longitudinal control model into the queuing network (QN) cognitive architecture. Platoon-oriented cut-in experiments are conducted to collect driver data under cut-in from back and front scenarios, which both include six sub-scenarios with different platoon gaps or initial velocities. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model in simulating the DCB towards platoons by comparing experimental and simulation results under various driving scenarios across different subjects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665