DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2 and 4 lack descriptive legends as required by 37 CFR 1.84(o). 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Motorcycle Lane Change Controller and Method.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 has an extra word “in” in line 2 before “in response to”. Claim 14 has an extra word “by” in line 6 before “via the controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi [JP 2014 191632] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the controller (ECU No. 18) of Takahashi for a rider-assistance system that assists with driving by a rider (Paragraph 2: notifies the driver that the vehicle or the like is present behind the vehicle) of a vehicle is configured to 1) acquire positional relationship information between the vehicle and a rear vehicle using the rear radars (Nos. 16A and 16B) as well as the rear camera (No. 16C) that sees a vehicle (No. 34) located behind their own vehicle (No. 10), and 2) execute a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider using the human machine interface (HMI No. 23), wherein the controller executes a lane change notification based on the positional relationship information, the lane change notification operation including the rider-assistance operation notifying the rider of an instruction on a lane change (Paragraph 20: The HMI 23 (Human Machine Interface) is a notification means for prompting the driver to change lanes based on the command of the ECU 18 that has received the outputs of the above-described cameras and radars).
The Examiner recognizes that the vehicle (No. 10) is not described as a “straddle-type” vehicle or a motorcycle. However, the Takahashi reference is not particular or specific as to what type of vehicle is being used. Furthermore, using the Takahashi system on a motorcycle would not produce any new or unexpected result that would delineate use of a motorcycle as opposed to the use of a four-wheeled vehicle. Therefore, using a motorcycle in the system of Takahashi is considered an obvious variation on the prior art as motorcycles have been used with safety systems for some time.
For claim 6, Paragraph 28 of Takahashi details how the system can determine whether the vehicle (No. 10) is traveling in the passing lane (No. 40) as opposed to the regular traveling lane (No. 42) using the radar (No. 16A).
For claim 7, the road seen in Figure 2B of Takahashi has plural lanes (Nos. 40 and 42).
For claim 8, the vehicle (No. 10) seen in Figure 2B of Takahashi is traveling in the overtaking lane (Paragraph 30, No. 40).
For claim 9, Figure 2B of Takahashi displays two separate vehicles (Nos. 36 and 38) that may be present in the destination lane that determines whether the own vehicle collides with either vehicle based on distance and speed (Paragraphs 32 and 33).
For claim 10, the HMI (No. 23) of Takahashi may be a display (Paragraph 20: the HMI 23 is a display…in the vehicle cabin, and outputs a display).
For claim 12, the HMI of Takahashi may use a speaker (Paragraph 20: the HMI 23 is…a speaker…and outputs a…sound).
For claim 14, the control method (No. 20) of Takahashi for a rider-assistance system that assists with driving by a rider (Paragraph 2: notifies the driver that the vehicle or the like is present behind the vehicle) of a vehicle is configured to 1) acquire positional relationship information between the vehicle and a rear vehicle using the rear radars (Nos. 16A and 16B) as well as the rear camera (No. 16C) that sees a vehicle (No. 34) located behind their own vehicle (No. 10), and 2) execute a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider using the human machine interface (HMI No. 23), wherein the controller executes a lane change notification based on the positional relationship information, the lane change notification operation including the rider-assistance operation notifying the rider of an instruction on a lane change (Paragraph 20: The HMI 23 (Human Machine Interface) is a notification means for prompting the driver to change lanes based on the command of the ECU 18 that has received the outputs of the above-described cameras and radars).
The Examiner recognizes that the vehicle (No. 10) is not described as a “straddle-type” vehicle or a motorcycle. The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomescu [US 2019/0329780] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the controller (No. 3) for a rider-assistance system (Abstract: providing lane change assistance information to the driver of a vehicle) that assists with driving by a rider of a vehicle taught by Tomescu is configured to 1) acquire positional relationship information between the vehicle and a rear vehicle that is a vehicle located behind the driver’s vehicle using the sensor units (Nos. 4-1 through 4-4) that may be radar units (Paragraph 37) working in conjunction with the detection unit (No. 2), and 2) execute a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider using the user interface (No. 5) wherein the controller executes a lane change notification operation based on the positional relationship information, the lane change notification operation including the rider-assistance operation notifying the rider to an instruction on a lane change (Paragraph 8: information the driver of the vehicle about the other approaching vehicle in order to trigger a manual or autonomous lane change of the vehicle if a lane change to another lane of the same roadway is possible).
The Examiner recognizes that the vehicle (Figs. 6-8: “A”) is not described as a “straddle-type” vehicle or a motorcycle. The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 2, the Tomescu reference also takes relative speed of the vehicles into account when executing the lane change notification operation (Paragraphs 13-15; Paragraph 17: a warning signal is output by the vehicle prior to and/or during the lane change if the calculated relative speed between the vehicle and the other detection vehicle, which is approaching the vehicle from behind, exceeds a threshold).
For claim 5, the Tomescu reference also outputs its warning signal as a function of the urgency of the lane change to be made (Paragraph 36: the driver of the vehicle can receive warning messages from the device 1 as a function of the urgency of the lane change to be made…The amplitude and frequency of the acoustic and/or visual warning signal can depend on the established relative speed and/or the direction of approach such that the driver can immediately recognize the urgency of a lane change which has to be made).
For claims 10 and 12, the warning signal of Tomescu can either be a visual or audible warning (Paragraph 36: The amplitude of the acoustic and/or visual warning signal).
For claim 14, the control method (Title: Method) for a rider-assistance system (Abstract: providing lane change assistance information to the driver of a vehicle) that assists with driving by a rider of a vehicle taught by Tomescu is configured to 1) acquire positional relationship information between the vehicle and a rear vehicle that is a vehicle located behind the driver’s vehicle using the sensor units (Nos. 4-1 through 4-4) that may be radar units (Paragraph 37) working in conjunction with the detection unit (No. 2), and 2) execute a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider using the user interface (No. 5) wherein the controller executes a lane change notification operation based on the positional relationship information, the lane change notification operation including the rider-assistance operation notifying the rider to an instruction on a lane change (Paragraph 8: information the driver of the vehicle about the other approaching vehicle in order to trigger a manual or autonomous lane change of the vehicle if a lane change to another lane of the same roadway is possible).
The Examiner recognizes that the vehicle (Figs. 6-8: “A”) is not described as a “straddle-type” vehicle or a motorcycle. The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomescu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Houenou et al [FR 3077548] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 3, the Tomescu reference teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above. However, the reference does not include indicating that a passing time difference for the rear vehicle to pass a current position is shorter than a reference time.
The Houenou reference teaches similar subject matter as the primary reference. The system pertains to an assistance device for a driver that uses acquisition means (See Figure, MAQ5) to detect a vehicle (V2) behind the first vehicle. These acquisition means can be cameras, ultrasound sensor, radar, or inter-vehicle communication device (Page 5, Lns. 18-22). Also, the reference mentions generating a warning message (Page 6, Ln. 29 – Page 7, Ln. 3) that can be displayed and/or broadcast in the first vehicle and signaling a possibility of merging into the right lane (VC1). More importantly, the Houenou reference describes a plurality of kinematic parameters (Page 5, Ln. 32 – Page 6, Ln. 5) of objects surrounding the vehicle, including a position of the object relative to the vehicle, the relative speed of the object, and the relative acceleration of the object that can be acquired by said acquisition means.
Furthermore, the reference goes on to describe a predefined time interval that the second vehicle will be located relative to the first vehicle (Page 8, Ln. 29 – Page 9, Ln. 11). The processing means first estimates a relative position of the second vehicle with respect to the first vehicle in a predefined future time interval, which may be between two and six seconds. The processing means would then generate a warning message when a relative position corresponds to an inter-vehicle time (tiv) which is greater than a time threshold. This threshold may be between one and three seconds.
The Houenou reference shows that many different parameters can and have been used to estimate the position of a vehicle behind another vehicle, such as position, velocity, and acceleration. Also, the time it takes for the vehicle to travel a distance can also be determined in order to generate a warning signal to the driver. And the Tomescu reference uses similar subject matter for similar functions to perform driver assistance as well as calculating relative speed to alert a driver. The Houenou reference merely introduces another possible parameter that can be measured to perform driver assistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use inter-vehicle time intervals to alert a driver of an overtaking vehicle as this property has been shown in the prior art to produce satisfactory results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomescu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gowda et al [US 2019/0389487] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 4, the Tomescu reference comprises the claimed subject matter as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, there is no mention of indicating an inter-vehicle distance is shorter than a reference distance.
Distance has been used in the prior art to determine vehicle positions as seen in the alert system taught by Gowda. In the Gowda reference, a speed of a vehicle (No. 250) following a first vehicle (No. 200) is computed and this property is used to calculate a safe distance (Paragraph 26, see equation). Based on the determination of a safe driving distance, a tailgating alert system (No. 150) can set a threshold at which to generate an alert (Paragraph 30). Furthermore, one embodiment (Fig. 3B) can produce a warning (No. 320) indicating that a car is approaching and recommends options to improve safety, such as changing lanes.
The distance between vehicles is easy to perform using radar sensors such as those seen in Tomescu. And the Gowda reference presents a simple formula to use this distance and the velocity to produce an alert to the driver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use distance as a parameter in the Tomescu reference for the purpose of using information already available to a user of Tomescu to determine proper safety alerts for the driver.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Talamonti et al [US 2018/0286242].
For claim 11, the controller of Takahashi performs the claimed subject matter as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, there is no mention of notifying the driver by vibration.
The steering wheel actuation taught by Talamonti can deliver a haptic output to a steering wheel when the time to a collision is less than or equal to a predetermined time threshold (Abstract). As seen in Figure 19, the reference first determines a time to a potential collision and a safe travel path and can display this to the driver. Depending on the amount of time, a haptic output (Nos. 1908, 1910, 1912) can be delivered based on the travel path. This prompts the occupant to either execute a lane change maneuver (Paragraph 99) or indicate an intent to execute the maneuver.
The Talamonti reference shows that other alert mechanisms other than visual or audible can be used to indicate a possible lane change. And a display is already present in the Takahashi reference, as well as a steering wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use vibration or haptic output in the steering wheel of Takahashi to indicate a possible lane change for the purpose of using a component in every vehicle to produce an unmistakable indication that can be sensed by any driver.
For claim 13, the torque applied in the system of Talamonti can be delivered in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction based on the direction of lane change maneuver represented by a field of safe travel (Paragraph 99).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Breuel et al [US 2007/0027597] induces a steering wheel torque in the form of a vibration.
Pfau [U.S. 12,358,504] mounts a surrounding environment detector on a motorcycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
7/24/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights