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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0154225 (Stein) in view of US 2022/0314979 (Oh).
With respect to claims 1 and 11
Stein teaches: An apparatus for controlling a vehicle (see at least Abstract), the apparatus comprising: a processor (110) coupled to a memory (140 and #150); and the memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor (see at least Fig 1; #110, #140, #150, #180 and #190; and ¶0050-57), are configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive sensor information from at least one of a plurality of sensors(#120-130) disposed at the vehicle (See at least Fig 1; #120-130; and ¶0050, ¶0055, ¶0058, and ¶0063),
wherein the sensor information comprises information related to at least one object within a threshold distance to the vehicle (see at least Fig 5(a-f); #540, and #542; and ¶0116, ¶0119, and ¶0124; Discussing detecting objects nearby the vehicle.);
determine, based on a preset target condition and the sensor information, a target vehicle (see at least Fig 5(a-f); #540; and ¶0123 and ¶0153; Discussing looking at predetermined patterns to identify object in the images and determine if another vehicle may attempt to shift to the same lane claimed vehicle.);
determine whether an entry condition in which the target vehicle enters a driving lane of the vehicle is satisfied (see at least Fig 5(a-f) and 8; #584 and #802; and ¶0154-163; Discussing determining if the target vehicle is changing lanes.);
determine, based on the entry condition being satisfied, a control for avoiding a collision with the target vehicle (see at least Fig 5-8; #530, #630, #730, and #804; and ¶0122, ¶0145, ¶0149) ; and
determine, a braking control of the vehicle (see at least Fig 2(f) and 5-8; #230, #530, #630, #730, and #804; and ¶0098, ¶0122, ¶0145, ¶0149).
Although Stein teaches controlling the vehicle, Stein does not go into details of the control maneuver, and therefore does not specifically teach:
determine, based on the entry condition being satisfied, a first position control reference point for avoiding a collision with the target vehicle; and
determine, based on the first position control reference point, a braking control of the vehicle.
However Oh teaches:
determine, based on the entry condition being satisfied, a first position control reference point for avoiding a collision with the target vehicle (see at least Fig 21 and 22; Control point; S524; and ¶0140-145 and ¶0151); and
determine, based on the first position control reference point, a braking control of the vehicle (see at least Fig 21 and 22; Control point; S524; and ¶0140-145 and ¶0151).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for controlling a vehicle when another vehicle is cutting its lane disclosed in Stein with a system for controlling a vehicle when another vehicle is cutting its lane using control points as taught in Oh with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the vehicle to take proper action and not needlessly brake (see Oh ¶0140-145).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11597385 (Jang) and US 9412277 (Nath et al.) Discusses a method of controlling a vehicle in response to another vehicle changing lanes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights