DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 2/14/2025.
Claims 1-4 have been canceled.
Claims 5-8 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the labels in Figures 2 are illegible, due to the small font size. This issue would cause printing errors if not addressed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office action, except within the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections which follow specific formatting guidelines detailed therein.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 5
Claim 5. A method for safety assessment of a lane change maneuver in an automatic driving operation of a vehicle (EGO) having a surroundings sensor system, wherein surroundings of the vehicle (EGO) and objects found in the surroundings are detected by signals captured by the surroundings sensor system, comprising the steps of:
before initiating a lane change maneuver of the vehicle (EGO) of a multi-lane carriageway section (F) from a left lane (F1) to a middle lane (F2) or from a right lane (F3) to the middle lane (F2), determining a collision risk by hypothetical lane change maneuvers of other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) in the right lane (F3) or the left lane (F1);
determining longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) on a basis of a maximum lane change duration and a merging moment (tEM), which lead to a collision due to an overlap of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle (EGO) and the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3); and
assessing an execution of the lane change maneuver depending on a relative longitudinal position (∆xMM,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) relative to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) and initial relative longitudinal speeds (∆vx,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) at a start of a lane change maneuver using a collision probability as a safety measure (S1) and a minimum distance (dx,min) when a collision does not occur as a further safety measure (S2).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of before initiating a lane change maneuver of the vehicle (EGO) of a multi-lane carriageway section (F) from a left lane (F1) to a middle lane (F2) or from a right lane (F3) to the middle lane (F2), determining a collision risk by hypothetical lane change maneuvers of other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) in the right lane (F3) or the left lane (F1).
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “collision risk” is data indicative of a risk of collision. No active vehicle operations are claimed, as the lane change maneuver is defined as “hypothetical.” The limitation of “before initiating a lane change maneuver of the vehicle (EGO) of a multi-lane carriageway section (F) from a left lane (F1) to a middle lane (F2) or from a right lane (F3) to the middle lane (F2)” merely acts as a situational condition, defining the claimed “determining” step as merely occurring before any vehicle behavior occurs.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. vehicle and other vehicles) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine a collision risk by hypothetical lane change maneuvers of other vehicles in the right or left lanes). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) on a basis of a maximum lane change duration and a merging moment (tEM), which lead to a collision due to an overlap of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle (EGO) and the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3).
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “longitudinal accelerations” is data pertaining to longitudinal accelerations of other vehicles. No active control operations of the other vehicles are claimed. Interpreted in light of the preceding element, this step may be considered as pertaining to “hypothetical” data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “maximum lane change duration” and “merging moment,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to times associated with lane change. Again, no active control operations are claimed in which the vehicle or other vehicles perform a lane change, and all data may be considered “hypothetical,” in light of the preceding element.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. maximum lane change duration and merging moment) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. determine longitudinal accelerations of the other vehicles). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of assessing an execution of the lane change maneuver depending on a relative longitudinal position (∆xMM,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) relative to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) and initial relative longitudinal speeds (∆vx,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) at a start of a lane change maneuver using a collision probability as a safety measure (S1) and a minimum distance (dx,min) when a collision does not occur as a further safety measure (S2).
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “lane change maneuver” is spatial data representative of a lane change. The limitation of “assessing an execution of the lane change maneuver” does not require active control operations of the vehicle and merely pertains to the evaluation of generally recited data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “longitudinal position” and “initial relative longitudinal speeds,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, similarly equates to data representative of position and speed values, respectively, without requiring any active control operations of the vehicle or other vehicles. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “collision probability” and “minimum distance,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is also generally recited data representing collision probability and a minimum distance associated with when a collision does not occur, respectively, without requiring any active control operations of the vehicle or other vehicles or analysis of particular sensor data. For example, this limitation may reasonably encompass a person standing roadside evaluating a vehicle’s lane change trajectory against threshold criteria defined by the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. lane change maneuver, relative longitudinal position, initial relative longitudinal speeds, collision probability, and minimum distance) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. assess an execution of the lane change maneuver). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The mere nominal recitation of a “vehicle” and “other vehicles” as being objects upon which the claimed method operates does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of safety assessment of a lane change maneuver in an automatic driving operation of a vehicle (EGO) having a surroundings sensor system, and surroundings of the vehicle (EGO) and objects found in the surroundings are detected by signals captured by the surroundings sensor system in the preamble.
The “vehicle having a surroundings sensor system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Given that no active lane change maneuvers are performed by the vehicle in the method steps, and the determined “collision risk” is associated with “hypothetical lane change maneuvers,” so to be performed “before initiating a lane change maneuver,” merely defining the safety assessment of a lane change maneuver as being “in an automatic driving operation of a vehicle” does not require the vehicle to be actively performing the lane change maneuver, and thus, the vehicle merely acts an object upon which the abstract idea is performed.
The limitation in which “objects found in the surroundings are detected” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general detecting of objects in the surroundings of the vehicle) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “surrounding sensor system” is a generic sensor that is merely claimed as a source of the generally recited data, and therefore, the “surrounding sensor system” does not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the vehicle having a surroundings sensor system and other vehicles were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the vehicle and surrounding objects/vehicles as conventional in a multi-lane carriageway environment, and the specification does not provide any indication that the surroundings sensor system is anything other than conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 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; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that performing repetitive calculations, storing and retrieving information in memory, and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 6-8
Dependent claims 6-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of both the safety measure (S1) and the further safety measure (S2) are determined on a basis of a model and wherein the collision probability and the minimum distance (dx,min) during the lane change maneuver are influenced by changing a longitudinal acceleration (ax,EGO,n) and/or an initial situation of the vehicle (EGO) (∆xMM,init,PEi, ∆vx,init,PEi) relative to one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) driving next to the vehicle (EGO).
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. model) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine the safety measure and further safety measure based on a model). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further limiting the “collision probability” and “minimum distance” to be influenced by changing a longitudinal acceleration (ax,EGO,n) and/or an initial situation of the vehicle (EGO) (∆xMM,init,PEi, ∆vx,init,PEi) relative to one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) driving next to the vehicle (EGO) represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of assessment of the collision probability as a safety measure (S1) is performed using a previously determined probability of expected longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE I to PE3), using the initial situation (∆xMM,init,PEi, ∆vx,init,PEi), using geometric vehicle information (lEGO) of the vehicle (EGO) and geometric vehicle information (lPEi) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3), using start times of the hypothetical lane change maneuvers of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3), a duration of the lane change maneuver, and a planned longitudinal acceleration (ax,EGO,n) of the vehicle (EGO).
The additional limitations used to assess the collision probability are generally recited data that don’t require active controlled operations of the vehicle or other vehicles. Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. collision probability, previously determined probability of expected longitudinal accelerations of the other vehicles, the initial situation, geometric vehicle information of the vehicle and geometric vehicle information of the other vehicles, start times of the hypothetical lane change maneuvers of the other vehicles, a duration of the lane change maneuver, and a planned longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. assess the collision probability). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of assessment of the minimum distance (dx,min) as a further safety measure (S2) is performed on a basis of a minimum longitudinal distance of a bumper of the vehicle (EGO) to a bumper of one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) driving next to the vehicle (EGO), wherein the minimum distance (dx,min) is selected during the lane change maneuver after it is determined that transverse coordinates of the vehicle (EGO) and at least one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) intersect.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “minimum longitudinal distance” is data representative of a distance of a bumper of the vehicle to the bumper of another vehicle. Given that the maneuvers are defined as “hypothetical” in claim 5, the limitations involving conditions, such as “driving next to the vehicle” or “during the lane change maneuver” merely reflect simulated operations used to describe the generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. minimum distance and minimum longitudinal distance) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. assess the minimum distance based on a minimum longitudinal distance). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the selection of the “minimum distance” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selection of the minimum distance) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated upon a generally recited condition (i.e. after it is determined that transverse coordinates of the vehicle and other vehicles intersect) which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 5.
Claims 5-8 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 10,011,281 B1), hereinafter Kang, in view of Lee (US 2022/0194411 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Claim 5
Kang discloses the claimed method for safety assessment of a lane change maneuver in an automatic driving operation of a vehicle (EGO) (see col. 12, lines 5-13, regarding a lane change is automatically executed based on the probability of collisions with neighboring vehicles) having a surroundings sensor system (i.e. omnidirectional sensor 130), wherein surroundings of the vehicle (EGO) and objects found in the surroundings are detected by signals captured by the surroundings sensor system (see col. 6, lines 46-51, regarding omnidirectional sensor 130 detects other vehicles traveling or located ahead, behind, and to the sides of the subject vehicle, senses distances between the subject vehicle and other vehicles, and provides the sensing results to processor 200), comprising the steps of before initiating a lane change maneuver of the vehicle (EGO) of a multi-lane carriageway section (F), determining a collision risk by hypothetical lane change maneuvers of other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) in the right lane (F3) or the left lane (F1) (see col. 8, lines 11-19, regarding driving mode setting unit 210 predicts the probability of collisions with other vehicles traveling or located ahead, behind, and to the side of the subject vehicle on a target lane to be changed from the sensing data of omnidirectional sensor 130, where the predicted probability of collisions is used to set a driving mode that is used to generate a lane change path, as further described in col. 8, lines 19-57; Figures 9A-9C, depicting embodiments in which preceding vehicles 11, 20 are in a right lane). While the Figures of Kang depict a “lane change maneuver” from a middle lane, not from a left lane (F1) to a middle lane (F2) or from a right lane (F3) to the middle lane (F2), the disclosure of Kang does not expressly limit the starting lane to a middle lane; therefore, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to modify the subject vehicle (i.e. “vehicle”) of Kang to be initially positioned in a left or right lane, with the predictable result of providing old and well-known lane change maneuvers that commonly occur from a left or right light of a multi-lane road.
Further, given that only one of the “right lane” or “left lane” is required to be taught with respect to the “other vehicles,” the claim encompasses embodiments in which the other vehicle is in the same lane as the “vehicle” before executing a lane change maneuver, and thus, Kang discloses this embodiment with respect to Figure 5, where subject vehicle 10 (i.e. “vehicle”) is located a distance behind preceding vehicle 20 (i.e. “other vehicle”).
Kang further discloses that the claimed steps comprise assessing an execution of the lane change maneuver depending on a relative longitudinal position (∆xMM,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) relative to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) (i.e. xL1(t) – xL2(t) in equation 1) and initial relative longitudinal speeds (∆vx,init,PEi) of the vehicle (EGO) to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) (i.e. vL1(0) - vL0(0) in equation 2) at a start of a lane change maneuver using a collision probability as a safety measure (S1) and a minimum distance (dx,min) when a collision does not occur (i.e. minimum longitudinal safety distance s(0) in equation 3) as a further safety measure (S2) (see col. 8, line 53-col. 9, line 33, with respect to equations 1-3, regarding that equations 1-3 are used for generating a lane change path based on vehicle speeds to be set based on driving modes set by driving mode setting unit 210, where equation 1 evaluates that a collision will not occur when changing to a target lane based on a longitudinal distance between a subject vehicle 10 and preceding vehicle 20, equation 2 evaluates the longitudinal distance over time, and equation 3 evaluates the minimum longitudinal safety distance between subject vehicle 10 and preceding vehicle 20; col. 8, lines 11-57, regarding that the predicted probability of collisions with other vehicles traveling or located ahead of the subject vehicle on a target lane is used to set the driving mode which is used to generate the lane change path).
Kang does not further disclose that the claimed steps comprise determining longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) on a basis of a maximum lane change duration and a merging moment (tEM), which lead to a collision due to an overlap of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle (EGO) and the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3). However, the determination of “longitudinal accelerations” has no influence on the other steps of the claim; therefore, Kang may be reasonably modified to include this additional step, in light of Lee.
Specifically, Lee teaches the known technique of determining longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of a rear vehicle (similar to the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) of Kang) on a basis of a maximum lane change duration and a merging moment (tEM), which lead to a collision due to an overlap of vehicle surfaces of the host vehicle (similar to the vehicle (EGO) of Kang) and the rear vehicle (see ¶0068-0085, with respect to equation 5, regarding determining the critical deceleration of the threat (rear) vehicle, defined as a deceleration in which an accident occurs in ¶0083, where the equation may be arranged to use a TTC). The limitation of “maximum lane change duration” and “merging moment” may be reasonably reflected in the time-to-collision. Due to no claimed relationships to the “lane change maneuver,” this limitation has been interpreted broadly for the purposes of the prior art rejection.
Since the systems of Kang and Lee are directed to the same purpose, i.e. evaluating a lane change of a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steps of Kang to further comprise determining longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) on a basis of a maximum lane change duration and a merging moment (tEM), which lead to a collision due to an overlap of vehicle surfaces of the vehicle (EGO) and the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3), in light of Lee, with the predictable result of supporting a safe lane change on the basis of collision risk level (¶0037 of Lee).
Claim 6
Kang further discloses that both the safety measure (S1) and the further safety measure (S2) are determined on a basis of a model and wherein the collision probability and the minimum distance (dx,min) during the lane change maneuver are influenced by changing a longitudinal acceleration (ax,EGO,n) and/or an initial situation of the vehicle (EGO) (∆xMM,init,PEi, ∆vx,init,PEi) relative to one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) driving next to the vehicle (EGO) (see col. 8, lines 12-19, regarding that the probability of collisions is predicted from the sensing data of the omnidirectional sensor 130, defined as detecting other vehicles traveling or located ahead, behind, and to the sides of the subject vehicle, and distances between the subject vehicle and other vehicles in col. 6, lines 46-51; col. 8, line 53-col. 9, line 34, with respect to equations 2 and 3, regarding that the longitudinal distance s(t) is a function of the relative longitudinal acceleration and relative velocity).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
With respect to claim 7, the closest prior art of record, Kang and Lee, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed assessment of the collision probability as a safety measure (S1) is performed using a previously determined probability of expected longitudinal accelerations (ax,PE) of the other vehicles (PE I to PE3), using the initial situation (∆xMM,init,PEi, ∆vx,init,PEi), using geometric vehicle information (lEGO) of the vehicle (EGO) and geometric vehicle information (lPEi) of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3), using start times of the hypothetical lane change maneuvers of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3), a duration of the lane change maneuver, and a planned longitudinal acceleration (ax,EGO,n) of the vehicle (EGO), in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach all limitations used in the “assessment of the collision probability,” in light of the overall claim. This feature would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
With respect to claim 8, the closest prior art of record, Kang and Lee, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed assessment of the minimum distance (dx,min) as a further safety measure (S2) is performed on a basis of a minimum longitudinal distance of a bumper of the vehicle (EGO) to a bumper of one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) driving next to the vehicle (EGO), wherein the minimum distance (dx,min) is selected during the lane change maneuver after it is determined that transverse coordinates of the vehicle (EGO) and at least one of the other vehicles (PE1 to PE3) intersect, in light of the overall claim.
Specifically, no reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach performing the “assessment of the minimum distance” based on the minimum bumper-to-bumper distance between the vehicle and another vehicle that is selected during the lane change maneuver after determining that traverse coordinates of the vehicles intersect, in light of the overall claim. This feature would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kuhne (US 2016/0137199 A1) teaches that as soon as an impending lane change of a vehicle is detected, an area two lanes over is monitored, and a determination is made of whether a vehicle is in motion or located there, which can also be counted on to move to the lane between the ones the two vehicles are traveling on (see ¶0015), Sugawara et al. (US 2018/0188735 A1) teaches determining a collision risk even if a parallel running vehicle has changed lane from another lane to the change destination lane when the host vehicle changes the lane (see ¶0047), and Pink et al. (US 2019/0023268 A1) teaches a method for ascertaining the danger potential of a lane change of an ego vehicle, so as to determine whether external other vehicles located outside of the detection range are able to reach a target region in which the ego vehicle is located following an intended lane change (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
