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 19/105,619 filed on 02/21/2025.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-30 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 § 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 16-18 and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee (KR 20180089717 A) in view of Knoller (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0015319 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
Hee teaches:
A device for operating a cruise control system of a vehicle, wherein the device is configured to: operate the cruise control system of the vehicle based on a determination that the vehicle is traveling on a first lane of a multi-lane roadway at a target speed which depends on a first speed limit that applies to the first lane;, (“The present invention relates to a driving support apparatus and a driving method thereof” (Hee: Description) Hee further mentions “Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
recognize that the vehicle is changing from the first lane to a second lane to which a second speed limit applies that is different from the first speed limit that applies to the first lane;, (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “The front camera 110 is disposed in front of the vehicle and photographs the front side in real time to generate image data. […] The first rule detection data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee further states “Then, the sign recognition unit 130 analyzes the image data to recognize a plurality of signboards disposed on the road, and recognizes characters, numbers, and graphics written on the signboards. […] The second road position data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
and adjust the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit only after a change event has been recognized., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: recognize at a first change time and/or at a first change position that the vehicle is changing from the first lane to the second lane; and adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit only at a second change time and/or at a second change position;, (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
[…] wherein the second change time and/or the second change position follows the first change time and/or the first change position; and/or the change event is recognized at or before the second change time and/or the second change position., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 18:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: following the recognized change of the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane,, (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
[…] cause an offer to adjust the target speed to the second speed limit that applies to the second lane to be issued via a user interface of the vehicle; and recognize a user input to accept the offer to adjust the target speed as the change event., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 9th-16th and 21st-32nd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Drawings – 42nd-52nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to recognize as the change event, based on sensor data from one or more environment sensors of the vehicle, that the vehicle, following the change to the second lane, passes a signaling unit indicating that the second speed limit applies to the second lane., (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “The front camera 110 is disposed in front of the vehicle and photographs the front side in real time to generate image data. […] The first rule detection data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee further states “Then, the sign recognition unit 130 analyzes the image data to recognize a plurality of signboards disposed on the road, and recognizes characters, numbers, and graphics written on the signboards. […] The second road position data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee finally states “Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
Regarding Claim 21:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to leave the target speed of the cruise control system unchanged until the change event is recognized., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 13th-17th and 26th-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 22:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit as soon as the change event is recognized., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd paragraph)
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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 23:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: recognize, following the recognized change of the vehicle to the second lane,, (“Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
[…] that the change event is from a set of possible change events; wherein the set of possible change events comprises a user input at a user interface of the vehicle an elapse of a predefined period of time and/or a traversing of a predefined travel distance since the change to the second lane; and/or the passing of a signaling unit which indicates the second speed limit that applies to the second lane; and adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit that applies to the second lane in response to the change event., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 24:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to adopt the second speed limit as the target speed of the cruise control system to adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 25:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit after the lane change to the second lane, (“Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
[…] only after the change event has been recognized, although the cruise control system is operated in an automatic mode, in which, during a journey of the vehicle within the first lane or the second lane, without the change event having to be recognized for this purpose, an automatic adaptation of the target speed of the cruise control system to a change in the speed limit that applies to the first lane or the second lane takes place., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 26:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: automatically adjust the target speed of the cruise control system to a changing first speed limit that applies to the first lane when the vehicle is traveling in the first lane; and/or after recognizing the change event, automatically adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to a changing second speed limit that applies to the second lane when the vehicle is traveling in the second lane., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 27:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee further teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: recognize while driving on the first lane, before the lane change from the first lane to the second lane, that a multi-lane limit situation exists on the roadway driven on by the vehicle, in which different speed limits apply for different lanes, including for the first lane and for the second lane of the roadway; and in response to recognition of the multi-lane limit situation,, (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “The front camera 110 is disposed in front of the vehicle and photographs the front side in real time to generate image data. […] The first rule detection data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee further states “Then, the sign recognition unit 130 analyzes the image data to recognize a plurality of signboards disposed on the road, and recognizes characters, numbers, and graphics written on the signboards. […] The second road position data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
[…] not adjust the target speed of the cruise control system to the speed limit that applies to a respective lane immediately after the lane change, but only after the change event has been recognized., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 28:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 27. Hee further teaches:
[…] even if a multi-lane limit situation is recognized., (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “The front camera 110 is disposed in front of the vehicle and photographs the front side in real time to generate image data. […] The first rule detection data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee further states “Then, the sign recognition unit 130 analyzes the image data to recognize a plurality of signboards disposed on the road, and recognizes characters, numbers, and graphics written on the signboards. […] The second road position data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 27, wherein the device is configured to automatically adapt the target speed of the cruise control system to a changing speed limit during a journey within the first or second lane without checking the change event,, (See (Knoller: Detailed Description of the Drawings – 32nd paragraph))
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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 29:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to: determine whether the second speed limit is higher or lower than the first speed limit; adjust the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit only after the change event has been recognized, if the second speed limit is greater than the first speed limit; and/or automatically adjust the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit, without requiring the change event, if the second speed limit is lower than the first speed limit., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 30:
Hee teaches:
A method for operating a cruise control system of a vehicle, the method comprising: operating the cruise control system of the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling on a first lane of a multi-lane roadway at a target speed which is dependent on a first speed limit that applies to the first lane;, (“The present invention relates to a driving support apparatus and a driving method thereof” (Hee: Description) Hee further mentions “Then, the control unit 160 detects a change in the vehicle (S70). […] The driving support apparatus and the driving method of the vehicle of the present invention can control the direction change of the vehicle by detecting the regulation violation situation due to the change in the car in advance in the autonomous driving mode.” (Hee: Description))
recognizing that the vehicle is changing from the first lane to a second lane to which a second speed limit applies that is different from the first speed limit that applies to the first lane;, (“Referring to FIG. 1, a traffic restriction speed (regulation) may be applied to each lane 10 differently. […] or for stopping the change to the vehicle during the automatic deceleration or autonomous driving at the time of autonomous driving.” (Hee: Description, FIG. 1) Hee further mentions “The front camera 110 is disposed in front of the vehicle and photographs the front side in real time to generate image data. […] The first rule detection data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description) Hee further states “Then, the sign recognition unit 130 analyzes the image data to recognize a plurality of signboards disposed on the road, and recognizes characters, numbers, and graphics written on the signboards. […] The second road position data and the second rule detection data generated by the position determination unit 140 are provided to the rule determination unit 150.” (Hee: Description))
Hee does not teach but Knoller teaches:
and adjusting the target speed of the cruise control system to the second speed limit only after a change event has been recognized., (See (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 4th-17th and 22nd-32nd 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 Hee with these above aforementioned teachings from Knoller in order to create an advanced method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Knoller’s longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle in order to adjust a target speed of a cruise control system in a vehicle to a different speed limit after a change event has been recognized. Combining Hee and Knoller would thus provide “an improved longitudinally guiding driver assistance system with an adaptation of the speed to a new permissible maximum speed, which adaptation the driver and/or the rear traffic can comprehend and which is therefore not unexpected.” (Knoller: Background and Summary of the Invention – 10th paragraph)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hee (KR 20180089717 A) in view of Knoller (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0015319 A1) in further view of Bo (CN 104742903 A).
Regarding Claim 19:
Hee in view of Knoller, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Hee in view of Knoller does not teach but Bo teaches:
The device according to claim 16, wherein the device is configured to recognize as the change event that a predefined time period and/or a predefined travel distance has elapsed and/or has been traversed since a change time and/or since a change position at which the change from the first lane to the second lane was recognized., (“In one embodiment, when vehicle 10 travels on a highway, can by the setting-up time section before vehicle 10 current time (such as, 1 second, vehicle 10 speed of operation is on a highway higher) […] and be positioned at second lane 12 the 2nd second time, then can determine that vehicle 10 changes track.” (Bo: Description))
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 Hee in view of Knoller with these above aforementioned teachings from Bo in order to create an effective method and device for operating a cruise control system during a lane change. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hee’s driving support device and method of a vehicle with Bo’s method and device for achieving cruise at constant speed in order to recognize that a predefined time period has elapsed at which a change from a first lane to a second lane was recognized in a vehicle. Combining Hee and Bo would thus provide “a kind of method and the device that realize cruise, in order to realize the difference regulation self adaptation cruise according to section.” (Bo: Description)
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