DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/105,604 filed on 02/21/2025.
Claims 1-14 have been cancelled.
Claims 15-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 21st, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the adjective “essentially”. Consequently, the adjective “essentially” is ambiguous and open-ended as it is unclear as to what “essentially” signifies since the Applicant has failed to previously define the adjective “essentially” in the instant specification. The Applicant might overcome the rejection by clearly defining what they intend by their use of the adjective “essentially” in claim 16.
Claims 17-18 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 16.
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 15-17, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrero (DE 102017217831 A1) in view of Widdowson (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0002294 A1).
Regarding Claim 15:
Herrero teaches:
A device for identifying an overhanging load of a preceding vehicle driving in front of a vehicle, the device comprising: a control unit operatively configured to: determine, based on sensor data from at least one surroundings sensor of the vehicle,, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
whether or not the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load., (“According to another embodiment, loading of the mobile object comprises at least one of the following items: […] - fluttering object.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Widdowson teaches:
a time curve of a distance of the preceding vehicle from the vehicle while the vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle; and determine, based on the time curve of the distance,, (See (Widdowson: Brief Description of the Drawings – 71st-72nd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 74th-82nd and 114th-120th paragraphs, FIG. 2 and 6-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Widdowson in order to create an advanced method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Widdowson’s range determination apparatus and method in order to determine a time curve of a distance of a preceding vehicle from a subject vehicle while the subject vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle. Combining Herrero and Widdowson would thus provide “a method and apparatus capable of detecting a correct value of the range of one object from the other object in circumstances where known devices may provide an erroneous range value.” (Widdowson: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Herrero further teaches:
[…] and determine that the preceding vehicle has the overhanging load when the time curve of the distance has a saddle range., (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Widdowson teaches:
The device according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is further configured to: check whether the time curve of the distance has a saddle range, in which the determined distance has an essentially constant value while the vehicle continues to approach the preceding vehicle;, (See (Widdowson: Brief Description of the Drawings – 71st-72nd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 74th-82nd and 114th-120th paragraphs, FIG. 2 and 6-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Widdowson in order to create an advanced method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Widdowson’s range determination apparatus and method in order to determine a time curve of a distance of a preceding vehicle from a subject vehicle while the subject vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle. Combining Herrero and Widdowson would thus provide “a method and apparatus capable of detecting a correct value of the range of one object from the other object in circumstances where known devices may provide an erroneous range value.” (Widdowson: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Herrero does not teach but Widdowson teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein at least one of: the determined distance deviates by at most ±10% from the constant value in the entire saddle range; the saddle range has a time extension of one second or more; the saddle range is arranged between a first range and a third range within the time curve of the distance, in each of which the determined distance decreases with a time gradient, wherein the time gradient depends on a differential speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle., (See (Widdowson: Brief Description of the Drawings – 71st-72nd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 74th-120th paragraphs, FIG. 2-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Widdowson in order to create an advanced method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Widdowson’s range determination apparatus and method in order to determine a time curve of a distance of a preceding vehicle from a subject vehicle while the subject vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle. Combining Herrero and Widdowson would thus provide “a method and apparatus capable of detecting a correct value of the range of one object from the other object in circumstances where known devices may provide an erroneous range value.” (Widdowson: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Regarding Claim 26:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 15, wherein the device is configured to effectuate one or more measures with respect to an automated driving function for automated longitudinal and/or lateral guidance of the vehicle when it is determined that the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load; and the one or more measures comprise: outputting a handover request to a driver of the vehicle in order to end the automated driving function; recording an attribute for the preceding vehicle in an environmental model, wherein the attribute indicates that the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load; and/or increasing a target distance to the preceding vehicle for a distance regulator for the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle., (“A second aspect of the invention relates to a method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the method comprising: […] If the vehicle occupant were to control the ego vehicle himself, the vehicle occupant would initiate a maneuver (increase distance, overtake, stop and / or change the route) to change or end the situation.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “In one embodiment, the automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle includes at least one of the following actions: […] If the recognition device recognizes, for example, a vehicle in front of the ego vehicle which transports ballast on the loading surface and assigns it the object classification "bulk material transport", then the automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle is carried out such that the safety distance to the preceding vehicle is increased.” (Herrero: Description))
Regarding Claim 28:
Herrero teaches:
A method for identifying an overhanging load of a preceding vehicle driving in front of a vehicle; the method comprising: determining, based on sensor data from at least one surroundings sensor of the vehicle,, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
whether or not the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load., (“According to another embodiment, loading of the mobile object comprises at least one of the following items: […] - fluttering object.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Widdowson teaches:
a time curve of a distance of the preceding vehicle from the vehicle while the vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle; and determining, based on the time curve of the distance,, (See (Widdowson: Brief Description of the Drawings – 71st-72nd paragraphs and Detailed Description – 74th-82nd and 114th-120th paragraphs, FIG. 2 and 6-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Widdowson in order to create an advanced method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Widdowson’s range determination apparatus and method in order to determine a time curve of a distance of a preceding vehicle from a subject vehicle while the subject vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle. Combining Herrero and Widdowson would thus provide “a method and apparatus capable of detecting a correct value of the range of one object from the other object in circumstances where known devices may provide an erroneous range value.” (Widdowson: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrero (DE 102017217831 A1) in view of Widdowson (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0002294 A1) in further view of Tokimasa (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0009282 A1).
Regarding Claim 18:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Herrero does not teach but Widdowson teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a time extension of the saddle range of the time curve of the distance; and determine, based on the time extension,, (See (Widdowson: Background – 6th-7th paragraphs, Brief Description of the Drawings – 71st-72nd paragraphs, and Detailed Description – 74th-82nd and 114th-120th paragraphs, FIG. 1-2 and 6-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Widdowson in order to create an advanced method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Widdowson’s range determination apparatus and method in order to determine a time curve of a distance of a preceding vehicle from a subject vehicle while the subject vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle. Combining Herrero and Widdowson would thus provide “a method and apparatus capable of detecting a correct value of the range of one object from the other object in circumstances where known devices may provide an erroneous range value.” (Widdowson: Field of the Invention – 1st paragraph)
Herrero in view of Widdowson does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
[…] a value of an overhang of the overhanging load in consideration of a differential speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle., (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-50th, 61st-69th, 81st-82nd, and 95th-96th paragraphs, FIG. 3-5))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero in view of Widdowson with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 19:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 15. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is further configured to: identify, based on the sensor data of the surroundings sensor, an additional object between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle;, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
[…] whether or not the preceding vehicle has the overhanging load., (“According to another embodiment, loading of the mobile object comprises at least one of the following items: […] - fluttering object.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero in view of Widdowson does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
[…] compare a speed of the additional object with a speed of the preceding vehicle; and determine, based on the speed comparison, […], (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-50th, 62nd-64th, 81st-82nd, and 95th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero in view of Widdowson with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 19. Herrero further teaches:
[…] whether or not the preceding vehicle has the overhanging load., (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero in view of Widdowson does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
The device according to claim 19, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine, based on the sensor data of the surroundings sensor, a distance between the preceding vehicle and the additional object; and determine, based on the determined distance,, (See (Tokimasa: Summary – 9th-10th paragraphs and Description of Specific Embodiments – 61st-69th paragraphs, FIG. 3-5))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero in view of Widdowson with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 21:
Herrero in view of Widdowson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 20. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 20, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine that the additional object is an overhanging load of the preceding vehicle when:, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero in view of Widdowson does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
[…] a difference of the speed of the additional object and the speed of the preceding vehicle is in absolute value equal to or less than a threshold value; and the determined distance between the preceding vehicle and the additional object is equal to or less than a threshold value., (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-52nd, 62nd-65th, 81st-83rd, and 87th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero in view of Widdowson with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Claims 22-25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrero (DE 102017217831 A1) in view of Tokimasa (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0009282 A1).
Regarding Claim 22:
Herrero teaches:
A device for identifying an overhanging load of a preceding vehicle driving in front of a vehicle, the device comprising: a control unit operatively configured to: identify, based on sensor data of a surroundings sensor of the vehicle, an additional object between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle;, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
whether or not the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load., (“According to another embodiment, loading of the mobile object comprises at least one of the following items: […] - fluttering object.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
compare a speed of the additional object with a speed of the preceding vehicle; and determine, based on the speed comparison,, (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-50th, 62nd-64th, 81st-82nd, and 95th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 23:
Herrero in view of Tokimasa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 22, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine that the preceding vehicle has the overhanging load, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
[…] when the speeds of the additional object and the preceding vehicle differ from one another by at most 10%., (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-50th, 62nd-64th, 81st-82nd, and 95th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 24:
Herrero in view of Tokimasa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 22, wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a type of the preceding vehicle; determine, depending on the type of the preceding vehicle, whether or not the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load; and determine that the preceding vehicle has the overhanging load when the preceding vehicle is a truck type., (“Driver assistance systems are known, which can plan and perform improved driving maneuvers by information about other road users, such as vehicle type (cars / trucks) or speed (slow / fast). […] A motor vehicle in this sense includes a motor vehicle, a motorcycle and a tractor.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “The recognition device can be arranged in or on the ego vehicle. Alternatively, a part of the recognition device, for example a sensor device, in or on the ego vehicle be arranged and another part of the detection device, for example, a corresponding control device or a computing unit, outside the ego vehicle, for example, on a server, be arranged. […] According to one embodiment, the movable object is one of the following: hookloaders, tow trucks, agricultural vehicles, trailers, trailers or caravans, work platforms, construction vehicles, excavators, construction machinery, construction vehicles, cabriolets, vehicles with hazardous materials, off-road vehicles, vans, sweepers, motorcycles, agricultural vehicles , Trucks, heavy trucks, vans, or tankers.” (Herrero: Description))
Regarding Claim 25:
Herrero in view of Tokimasa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Herrero further teaches:
[…] and identify the additional object based on sensor data of a part of the multiple surroundings sensors., (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
The device according to claim 22, wherein the control unit is further configured to: identify and track the preceding vehicle based on sensor data from multiple different surroundings sensors;, (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-30th, 38th-41st, 49th-51st, and 116th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 27:
Herrero in view of Tokimasa, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 22. Herrero further teaches:
The device according to claim 22, wherein the device is configured to effectuate one or more measures with respect to an automated driving function for automated longitudinal and/or lateral guidance of the vehicle when it is determined that the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load; and the one or more measures comprise: outputting a handover request to a driver of the vehicle in order to end the automated driving function; recording an attribute for the preceding vehicle in an environmental model, wherein the attribute indicates that the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load; and/or increasing a target distance to the preceding vehicle for a distance regulator for the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle., (“A second aspect of the invention relates to a method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the method comprising: […] If the vehicle occupant were to control the ego vehicle himself, the vehicle occupant would initiate a maneuver (increase distance, overtake, stop and / or change the route) to change or end the situation.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “In one embodiment, the automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle includes at least one of the following actions: […] If the recognition device recognizes, for example, a vehicle in front of the ego vehicle which transports ballast on the loading surface and assigns it the object classification "bulk material transport", then the automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle is carried out such that the safety distance to the preceding vehicle is increased.” (Herrero: Description))
Regarding Claim 29:
Herrero teaches:
A method for identifying an overhanging load of a preceding vehicle driving in front of a vehicle; the method comprising: identifying, based on sensor data of at least one surroundings sensor of the vehicle, an additional object between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle;, (“A first aspect of the invention relates to a system for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle, the system comprising: […] Plan and perform an automated driving maneuver of the ego vehicle depending on the assigned object classification.” (Herrero: Description) Herrero further mentions “Advantageously, the object attribute describes a driving characteristic and / or a load of the mobile object, which is indicative of a dangerous driving maneuver of the mobile object. […] The environment data described above may come from one of the aforementioned devices or from a combination of several of the aforementioned devices (sensor data fusion).” (Herrero: Description))
whether or not the preceding vehicle has an overhanging load., (“According to another embodiment, loading of the mobile object comprises at least one of the following items: […] - fluttering object.” (Herrero: Description))
Herrero does not teach but Tokimasa teaches:
comparing a speed of the additional object with a speed of the preceding vehicle; and determining, based on the speed comparison,, (See (Tokimasa: Description of Specific Embodiments – 25th-37th, 40th-50th, 62nd-64th, 81st-82nd, and 95th-96th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Herrero with these above aforementioned teachings from Tokimasa in order to create a safe method and device for identifying a vehicle having an overhanging load. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Herrero’s system and method for automated maneuvering of an ego vehicle with Tokimasa’s vehicle control apparatus in order to compare a speed of an additional object with a speed of a vehicle preceding a subject vehicle. Combining Herrero and Tokimasa would thus provide “a vehicle control apparatus capable of properly implementing inter-vehicle distance control of a vehicle carrying the apparatus behind a preceding vehicle.” (Tokimasa: Background – 8th paragraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights