DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 1/24/2025 and 6/26/2026 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 7/27/2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 9-16 are pending.
Claim 9 is the only independent claim
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Strauss (United States Patent Publication 2013/0338877).
With respect to Claim 9: Strauss discloses “A method for operating a driver assistance system of a commercial vehicle having two vehicle wheels pivotably arranged on a front axle” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention at the right-hand vehicle wheels of the vehicle 43)];
“the method comprising: detecting, by at least one detection device of the driver assistance system, an environment of the commercial vehicle” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (Both vehicles have vehicle-to-vehicle communication means on the basis of WLAN. By means of the vehicle-to-vehicle communication means, the distance control device arranged in the vehicle 43 is informed of the steering wheel angle and speed of the vehicle 44. By means of the stereo camera which is also present in the vehicle 43 and which is suitable for measuring distance, the distance control device in vehicle 43 determines the relative position of the vehicle 44 with respect to the vehicle 43. The distance control device can pre-calculate the driving trajectory of the vehicle 44 from the steering wheel angle data and the speed of the vehicle 44. On the basis of the relative position of the two vehicles and of the vehicle's own speed as well as its own steering wheel angle, the distance control device detects that a lateral collision will occur unless one of the two vehicles changes its driving trajectory. For this reason, an acoustic warning is issued to the driver of the vehicle 43 in order to alert him to the present danger. At the same time, an additional moment of force is superimposed on the vehicle steering wheel in order to give the driver a recommendation for correcting the driving trajectory in order to avoid a collision. However, since the driver does not react to the warning and does not follow the recommendation to change the steering wheel angle, the two vehicles continue to approach one another on their original driving trajectories. As soon as a certain lateral distance between the two vehicles is undershot, the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43)];
“detecting, by the detection device during a stop approach, a parking maneuver, or a turning maneuver of the commercial vehicle, an imminent collision of the commercial vehicle with an object” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (Both vehicles have vehicle-to-vehicle communication means on the basis of WLAN. By means of the vehicle-to-vehicle communication means, the distance control device arranged in the vehicle 43 is informed of the steering wheel angle and speed of the vehicle 44. By means of the stereo camera which is also present in the vehicle 43 and which is suitable for measuring distance, the distance control device in vehicle 43 determines the relative position of the vehicle 44 with respect to the vehicle 43. The distance control device can pre-calculate the driving trajectory of the vehicle 44 from the steering wheel angle data and the speed of the vehicle 44. On the basis of the relative position of the two vehicles and of the vehicle's own speed as well as its own steering wheel angle, the distance control device detects that a lateral collision will occur unless one of the two vehicles changes its driving trajectory. For this reason, an acoustic warning is issued to the driver of the vehicle 43 in order to alert him to the present danger. At the same time, an additional moment of force is superimposed on the vehicle steering wheel in order to give the driver a recommendation for correcting the driving trajectory in order to avoid a collision. However, since the driver does not react to the warning and does not follow the recommendation to change the steering wheel angle, the two vehicles continue to approach one another on their original driving trajectories. As soon as a certain lateral distance between the two vehicles is undershot, the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43)];
“wherein the object is separate from the commercial vehicle and is located in the environment” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (Both vehicles have vehicle-to-vehicle communication means on the basis of WLAN. By means of the vehicle-to-vehicle communication means, the distance control device arranged in the vehicle 43 is informed of the steering wheel angle and speed of the vehicle 44. By means of the stereo camera which is also present in the vehicle 43 and which is suitable for measuring distance, the distance control device in vehicle 43 determines the relative position of the vehicle 44 with respect to the vehicle 43. The distance control device can pre-calculate the driving trajectory of the vehicle 44 from the steering wheel angle data and the speed of the vehicle 44. On the basis of the relative position of the two vehicles and of the vehicle's own speed as well as its own steering wheel angle, the distance control device detects that a lateral collision will occur unless one of the two vehicles changes its driving trajectory. For this reason, an acoustic warning is issued to the driver of the vehicle 43 in order to alert him to the present danger. At the same time, an additional moment of force is superimposed on the vehicle steering wheel in order to give the driver a recommendation for correcting the driving trajectory in order to avoid a collision. However, since the driver does not react to the warning and does not follow the recommendation to change the steering wheel angle, the two vehicles continue to approach one another on their original driving trajectories. As soon as a certain lateral distance between the two vehicles is undershot, the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43)];
“and braking, by a braking device of the commercial vehicle responsive to the detection of the imminent collision, one of the two vehicle wheels to pivot the two vehicle wheels as a result of the braking to prevent the imminent collision of the commercial vehicle with the object” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention at the right-hand vehicle wheels of the vehicle 43)].
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative path presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not all of them. Claim 9 states 3 maneuvers, stopping, parking, and turning, and the Office will use turning. Thus all claims that depend on the alternatives not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration. Appropriate action is required.
Further, the term “commercial vehicle” is extremely broad. While it is the stance that any vehicle can be commercial, what applicant distinctly means is unclear, thus the Office will interpret ANY vehicle as being “commercial”.
With respect to Claim 10: Strauss discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein when the imminent collision with the object is detected by the detection device, a driver of the commercial vehicle is haptically warned via a steering handle coupled to the two vehicle wheels by braking by a second braking intervention effected by the braking device of the commercial vehicle.” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (At the same time, an additional moment of force is superimposed on the vehicle steering wheel in order to give the driver a recommendation for correcting the driving trajectory in order to avoid a collision)].
With respect to Claim 11: Claim 9 states “by the detection device during a stop approach, a parking maneuver, or a turning maneuver” however, Claim 11, which depends on Claim 9, does not require “the parking or turning maneuver” since these maneuvers are a set of “or”. Regarding the conditional phrase “or”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since the limitations of Claim 11 are not required, these limitations will be omitted. Appropriate action is required.
With respect to Claim 12: Claim 9 states “by the detection device during a stop approach, a parking maneuver, or a turning maneuver” however, Claim 12, which depends on Claim 9, does not require “stop approach or parking maneuver” since these maneuvers are a set of “or”. Regarding the conditional phrase “or”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since the limitations of Claim 12 are not required, these limitations will be omitted. Appropriate action is required.
With respect to Claim 13: Strauss discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein the commercial vehicle performs cornering during the turning maneuver and the imminent collision with the object is detected by the detection device, wherein the object is arranged on a side on an inside of a bend or on a side on an outside of the bend of the commercial vehicle in relation to a trajectory of the commercial vehicle during cornering” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention at the right-hand vehicle wheels of the vehicle 43)].
With respect to Claim 14: Strauss discloses “The method of claim 9, wherein the imminent collision is with a front or rear region of the commercial vehicle, with respect to a longitudinal direction of the commercial vehicle” [Strauss, ¶ 0067 with Figure 4 (the vehicle 44 moves into the sensor range of the ultrasonic sensors of vehicle 43. Since the distance control device also evaluates the signals of the ultrasonic sensors, it can verify the pre-calculated risk of a collision in this way. In order still to avoid the imminent collision, the distance control device carries out a braking intervention at the right-hand vehicle wheels of the vehicle 43)].
With respect to Claim 16: Strauss discloses “The method of claim 9, further comprising: detecting, by a second detection device of the commercial vehicle, a driving speed of the commercial vehicle, wherein the braking is effected by the braking device depending on the detected driving speed.” [Strauss, ¶ 0008, 0020, and 0048 (the device outputs a warning signal and/or carries out intervention into the vehicle braking system and/or the vehicle steering system if a speed-dependent minimum distance of the vehicle from a collision body is undershot or the pre-calculated driving trajectory of one or more vehicles suggests an imminent collision)].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (United States Patent Publication 2013/0338877) in view of Gali et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0064831).
With respect to Claim 15: While Strauss discloses imminent collision with vehicles that have trailers, Figure 3, Strauss does not specifically state that the collision is with its own trailer.
Gali, which is also a vehicle control system with collision avoidance teaches “wherein the imminent collision is of a trailer of the commercial vehicle with the object” [Gali, ¶ 0052 (The dynamic destination option provides several advantages to the end user, such as (a) collision avoidance of the trailer with obstacles in the current path by changing or adjusting the path and (b) adjustment of the path when the current path is difficult to maneuver)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gali into the invention of Strauss to not only include using sides of vehicles braking to help create turning moments during collision avoidance as Strauss discloses but to also account for the trailer when doing vehicle control as taught by Gali with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gali into Strauss to create a more robust system that be used on all vehicles, even vehicles with trailers. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using brakes on one side of a vehicle to help in turning the vehicle and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights