DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on May 22, 2025 amending canceling claims 1-10 and adding new claims 11-20. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 11-20.
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 11-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is rejected for not being distinctly claimed. Claim 11 recites in part:
A method for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising,
when the motor vehicle is on a road comprising at least two lanes and a semi-automatic lane change function is activated, the following steps:
This means that the steps that follow this clause are contingent on the semi-automatic lane change function being activated. But one of the steps recite: “determining an activated or deactivated state of said [semi-automatic lane change] function depending on a result of said comparing”. Does it make sense that the system requires that the SALC be activated to then take steps to determine if it is activated or deactivated? This does not seem to distinctively claim the invention. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as written in regards to this issue.
The claim further recites:
wherein the acquiring includes acquiring second data [ODD2] relating to the environment of the motor vehicle, the second data being distinct from said first data compared to said rules, and
wherein the acquired second data are used to determine the activated or deactivated state of said function and/or to correct said control instruction, when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress.
The phrase “wherein the acquiring” appears to refer back to the phrase “acquiring first data” recited earlier in the claim. But if that is the case, how can “the acquiring” of the first data include “acquiring second data”? This becomes especially confusing because the “the first data” that was initially acquired is compared to rules, while “the second data” is “distinct from said first data compared to said rules”. Is this second data really distinct from “said first data compared to said rules” or is it just distinct from the first data (said first data being compared to said rules)?
The beginning of the claim states that first data will be obtained and than compared to rules (basically national regulations). Then the SALC will be activated or not depending on the result of the comparing. The last two bullets of the claim recite activating or deactivating of the system occurs when “a lane change is in progress” is determined by second data. Emphasis added. It is difficult to understand what “determine the activated or deactivated state of said function” means here. Since the lane change is already in progress, doesn’t the lane change function have to be active? The intent of the clause might be to determine whether or not the lane change command should continue. That determination is made using second data, which can reasonably be sensor data of the area surrounding the host vehicle. That is how the claim will be interpreted for examination purposes.
For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as follows, with the examiner additions in bracketed bold:
A method for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising,
when the motor vehicle is on a road comprising at least two lanes and a semi-automatic lane change function is activated, the following steps:
acquiring [data including] first data relating to an environment of the motor vehicle;
comparing the acquired first data with a set of predetermined rules from a national and/or international regulation;
determining an activated or deactivated state of said function depending on a result of said comparing;
when said function is activated and a lane change request is received from a driver of the motor vehicle, determining a control instruction for at least one actuator for controlling the motor vehicle;
applying said control instruction via said at least one actuator so as to change the lane of the motor vehicle;
wherein the acquiring [data further] includes acquiring second data relating to the environment of the motor vehicle, the second data being distinct from said first data [that is] compared to said rules, and
wherein the acquired second data are used to determine the activated or deactivated state of said function and/or to correct said control instruction, when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress.
Claim 19 recites “the determination step” but no “a determination step” was previously recited. Claim 11 recites several “steps” including “determining an activated or deactivated state of said [semi-automatic lane change] function depending on a result of said comparing” and “determine the activated or deactivated state of said function…when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress.” Because claim 19 further recites that “the state is selected depending on said third data” the reciting of the determination step seems to be related to the determining an activated or deactivated “state” of the lane change function. For examination purposes that is how the claim will be interpreted. But this brings up a second 35 USC 112(b) rejection for this claim.
Claim 19 recites “the state” which appears to relate to “the activated or deactivated state” of the lane change function in claim 1, but it could relate to “an operating state…of the motor vehicle” in claim 19. It is not clear. For examination purposes, “the state” will be interpreted as discussed in the preceding paragraph. This brings up a third 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
In claim 19, if “the state” is the state of the SALC function, how can “the state” be “selected depending on said third data” when claim 1 already teaches that the state is “a result of said comparing” the first data to the rules. Isn’t there a conflict here? For examination purposes, claim 19 will be interpreted here to mean that “the state is selected depending [additionally] on said third data.
Whether or not this interpretation has written description is something the applicant must prove in their Response.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 recites:
A method for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising,
when the motor vehicle is on a road comprising at least two lanes and a semi-automatic lane change function is activated, the following steps:
acquiring first data relating to an environment of the motor vehicle;
comparing the acquired first data with a set of predetermined rules from a national and/or international regulation;
determining an activated or deactivated state of said function depending on a result of said comparing;
when said function is activated and a lane change request is received from a driver of the motor vehicle, determining a control instruction for at least one actuator for controlling the motor vehicle;
applying said control instruction via said at least one actuator so as to change the lane of the motor vehicle;
wherein the acquiring includes acquiring second data relating to the environment of the motor vehicle, the second data being distinct from said first data compared to said rules, and
wherein the acquired second data are used to determine the activated or deactivated state of said function and/or to correct said control instruction, when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress.
The “steps” including “acquiring first data,” are understood as being executed by the “camera,” “radar,” “lidar,” V2V, and “navigation service[s],” including remote sensors such as on infrastructure or other vehicles, as recited on pages 7, 9, and 11 of the present filed specification. Analyzing the data, including comparing it, is understood as being performed on the “computer,” as described on page 7 of the filed specification and in claim 20. Actually executing the lane change is performed by the vehicle 10 and its actuators, as described on pages 7 and 8. Therefore, there is sufficient material function to execute the claimed functions.
Claim 17 recites:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the acquisition step, at least some of the first and/or second data are acquired via communication means with which the motor vehicle is equipped.
The “communication means” is understood as being executed by the “telecommunications chip,” “computer” and “dynamic notification services” such as Waze navigation service, and V2I infrastructure as recited on page 7 of the present filed specification.
Claim 20 recites:
The motor vehicle, comprising:
means for acquiring data relating to the environment of the motor vehicle;
the at least one actuator to control the motor vehicle; and
a computer programmed to implement the control method as claimed in claim 11.
The phrase “means for acquiring data” is a means plus function phrase. The means of “acquiring data” is understood as being executed by the “camera,” “radar,” “lidar,” V2V, and “navigation service[s],” including remote sensors such as on infrastructure or other vehicles, as recited on pages 7, 9, and 11 of the present filed specification. Analyzing the data, including comparing it, is understood as being performed on the “computer,” as described on page 7 of the filed specification and in claim 20. Actually executing the lane change is understood as being performed by the vehicle 10 and its actuators, as described on pages 7 and 8. A lane change requires a least speed and steering which requires more than one actuator.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch (DE102019102421 A1) in view of Emura et al. (US2018/0093676).
Regarding claim 11, Resch teaches:
A method for controlling a motor vehicle, comprising (see Fig. 2),
when the motor vehicle is on a road comprising at least two lanes and a semi-automatic lane change function is activated, the following steps (see Fig. 2. See page 2 of the attached English translation for a lane change assistance system to support a driver.):
acquiring first data relating to an environment of the motor vehicle (in the present filed specification, the first data is ODD1. In the present filed specification see page 10 for detecting lanes, other vehicles, signs, cones, and the host vehicle’s own position and dynamics. This may additionally include map data.
With that in mind, see Resch, page 4 for a sensor system including a camera and radar system for detecting lanes and other road users. See also page 3 for a navigation system.);
comparing the acquired first data with a set of predetermined rules from a national and/or international regulation (in the present filed specification, page 8 teaches that national or international regulations can come from the NHTSA or the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, or by SAE International. Page 2 states that “regulation” help determine “whether or not the lane change is able to be authorized”. This relates to the ODD (operational design domain)_. Some “regulation prohibits any lane change maneuver on roads comprising lanes for pedestrians or cyclists.” The regulations say that in these areas the SALC (semi-automated lane change) system of the vehicle must be deactivated. But it is inconvenient for the driver to have to turn the system on and off all the time. So the present system checks the regulations automatically.
With that in mind, see Resch page 3 for determining the “legally permissible traversability” of lanes depending on data from an electronic map of a navigation system. See page 2 for determining “whether it is legally permissible” to change lanes “at the current vehicle position or not”. See page 3 for the navigation system determining the position and whether the lane markings permit passing or not);
determining an activated or deactivated state of said [semi-automatic lane change] function depending on a result of said comparing (see page 3 for determining the “legally permissible traversability” of lanes depending on whether or not it is legal.);
when said function is activated and a lane change request is received from a driver of the motor vehicle, determining a control instruction for at least one actuator for controlling the motor vehicle (see page 2 for the system performing an automated lane change maneuver or providing automated guidance);
applying said control instruction via said at least one actuator so as to change the lane of the motor vehicle (see page 4 for the electromechanical steering of the steering actuator 5 being controlled via electronic steering);
wherein the acquiring includes acquiring second data [ODD2 – vehicle sensor data] relating to the environment of the motor vehicle, the second data being distinct from said first data compared to said rules (see Resch, page 4 for a sensor system including a camera and radar system for detecting lanes and other road users.).
Yet Resch does not further teach:
wherein the acquired second data are used to determine the activated or deactivated state of said function and/or to correct said control instruction, when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress.
However, Emura teaches:
wherein the acquired second data are used to determine the activated or deactivated state of said function and/or to correct said control instruction, when the function is activated and a lane change is in progress (in one broad reasonable interpretation, this can mean that an ambulance detected through second data and that detection results in canceling the pausing the lane change when the lane change was activated or in progress. In the filed specification, see page 12 for second data being related to the presence or absence of emergency vehicles or a roadwork zone.
With that in mind, see Emura paragraph 0580 for the teaching that the host vehicle can determine “whether or not” the vehicle can “execute the selected planned action candidate (hereinafter also referred to as a ‘selected action’)”. This relates to whether or the “the latest detection information” and analysis of it shows that the selected action is safe. The end of paragraph 0580 teaches that the system will “execute the selected action at a possible timing within a certain time period.” Paragraph 0588 teaches that the system “determines whether or not it is possible to cause the vehicle to immediately execute the reserved action by referring to the latest detection information output from the detector 1020”. If it is possible to execute the action, it will be executed. If not, the reserve action may eventually be canceled, according to paragraph 0589. See Paragraph 0600 for a scenario of this. It explains that the host vehicle may be traveling behind a slow moving leading vehicle and the host vehicle is therefore forced to decelerate. The system may then offer the driver the selectable option of overtaking the slow leading vehicle. This “selected action” is also called the “selected planned action candidate”. This selected action will then be executed if it is safe. But there are cases, the paragraph says, that this overtaking will happen “unless there are vehicle approaching from behind in the overtaking lane”. In other words, the overtaking (the selected action) is not presently safe. In that case, the option for the lane change can be “reserved” as the planned candidate that the vehicle can be instructed to execute” at a later time if possible, while in the meantime the “current action” will be “deceleration”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Emura. The motivation for doing so would be to safely execute a lane change, as recognized by Emura (see paragraph 0580).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Resch undoubtably uses sensors to determine if the lane change is safe. That is why Resch discusses timing the lane change based on traffic density and traffic speed. For Resch, that obvious aspect of automatic lane change is not the focus. The focus instead is on following legal regulations regarding lane lines. Emura explicitly states the obvious, that the system will check for obstacles before actually executing the lane change.
Regarding claim 12, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Yet Resch does not further teach:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the determining said state, the state of said function is chosen from among the following states: activated, deactivated and momentarily inhibited.
However, Emura teaches:
in the determining said state, the state of said function is chosen from among the following states: activated, deactivated and momentarily inhibited. (in the present filed disclosure, page 14 contains some unclear statements but does clearly state that the lane change “function will be inhibited transiently in roadwork zones” and “when an emergency vehicle on a call is present”. Page 15 also mentions the “momentarily inhibited” state as related to a “ ‘roadwords zone’”. Page 12 also mentions “slippery roads”, zones where pedestrians or cyclist are detected at the edge of the road, zones with dense traffic” but these might also be understood as zones where the vehicle needs to “speed up the execution of the maneuver.”
With that in mind, see Emura paragraph 0580 which teaches that the host vehicle can determine “whether or not” the vehicle can “execute the selected planned action candidate (hereinafter also referred to as a ‘selected action’)”. This relates to whether or the “the latest detection information” and analysis of it shows that the selected action is safe. The end of paragraph 0580 teaches that the system will “execute the selected action at a possible timing within a certain time period.” Paragraph 0588 teaches that the system “determines whether or not it is possible to cause the vehicle to immediately execute the reserved action by referring to the latest detection information output from the detector 1020”. If it is possible to execute the action, it will be executed. If not, the reserve action may eventually be canceled, according to paragraph 0589. This teaches that the system always checks with real-time sensor data before executing an action. Sometimes an action may have to be put on reserve. As in the example of waiting for the motorcycle to pass before driving around an obstacle, such as a stick or slow moving forward vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch and Emura, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Emura. The motivation for doing so would be to safely execute a lane change either right away or soon after, as recognized by Emura (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 15, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Yet Resch does not further teach:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein
said control instruction is corrected during a maneuver depending on the acquired second data.
However, Emura teaches:
said control instruction is corrected during a maneuver depending on the acquired second data (see Emura Fig. 8A which presents a scenario in which the host vehicle 1 is driving in a lane, but according to Fig. 8B, there is a “slow-speed vehicle ahead.” Therefore, the system presents the driver with several autonomous actions, including “follow,” “overtake,” and “lane change”. Fig. 10B provides even more options, such as “lane change to the left,” “lane change to the right,” “Acceleration” or “deceleration”.
It seems obvious that a vehicle with this level of sophistication would not simply change lanes even if a vehicle occupant selected that option or even if it had a second or two before appeared to be safe. The system is always going to use real time sensor data. Emura, paragraph 0580 elaborates on this. It teaches that the host vehicle can determine “whether or not” the vehicle can “execute the selected planned action candidate (hereinafter also referred to as a ‘selected action’)”. This relates to whether or the “the latest detection information” and analysis of it shows that the selected action is safe. Paragraph 0588 teaches that the system “determines whether or not it is possible to cause the vehicle to immediately execute the reserved action by referring to the latest detection information output from the detector 1020”. If it is possible to execute the action, it will be executed. If not, the reserve action may eventually be canceled, according to paragraph 0589. This teaches that the system always checks with real-time sensor data before executing an action. Sometimes an action may have to be put on reserve.).
Regarding claim 16, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Resch further teaches:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the acquisition step, at least some of the first and/or second data are acquired from a database of map data (see also page 3 for a navigation system).
Regarding claim 17, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Yet Resch does not further teach:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the acquisition step, at least some of the first and/or second data are acquired via communication means with which the motor vehicle is equipped.
However, Emura teaches:
in the acquisition step, at least some of the first and/or second data are acquired via communication means with which the motor vehicle is equipped (see paragraph 0733).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch and Emura, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Emura. The motivation for doing so would be to safely execute a lane change either right away or soon after, as recognized by Emura (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 18, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Resch further teaches:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the acquisition step, at least some of the first and/or second data are acquired via sensors with which the motor vehicle is equipped (see Resch, page 4 for a sensor system including a camera and radar system for detecting lanes and other road users.).
Regarding claim 19, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Resch further teaches:
The control method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the acquisition step, third data relating to an operating state and/or a position and/or dynamics of the motor vehicle are acquired and, in the determination step, the state is selected depending on said third data (in the present filed specification, see page 11 for “third preliminary data” being related to detecting a “broken-down vehicle, a traffic jam, an emergency vehicle on a call.” But this is related to other vehicles. See page 10 for sub-step S1b for the computer acquiring “data relating…to the vehicle itself (position, dynamics, operating state of its sensors, etc.” This includes the status of the turn signals “or the position of the actuator stalk for these indicators.”
With that in mind, see Resch, page 5 for the position of the turn signal lever.).
Regarding claim 20, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Resch further teaches:
The motor vehicle, comprising:
means for acquiring data relating to the environment of the motor vehicle (see Resch, page 4 for a sensor system including a camera and radar system for detecting lanes and other road users.);
the at least one actuator to control the motor vehicle (see page 2 for the system performing an automated lane change maneuver or providing automated guidance. See page 4 for the electromechanical steering of the steering actuator 5 being controlled via electronic steering); and
a computer programmed to implement the control method as claimed in claim 11 (see page 3 for a control unit with a processor).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resch (DE102019102421 A1) in view of Emura et al. (US2018/0093676) in further view of Maruyama (US2016/0091896) listed in the applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 13, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 11.
Resch does not further teach:
when the deactivated state has not been chosen, selecting the activated state or the momentarily inhibited state depending on the acquired second data.
However, Emura teaches:
when the deactivated state has not been chosen, selecting the activated state or the momentarily inhibited state depending on the acquired second data (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588-0589) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch and Emura, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Emura. The motivation for doing so would be to safely execute a lane change either right away or soon after, as recognized by Emura (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Yet Resch and Emura do not further teach:
The control method as claimed in claim 12, wherein
the determining said state includes: choosing either the deactivated state or one of the activated or momentarily inhibited states depending on the result of said comparing.
However, Maruyama teaches:
the determining said state includes: choosing either the deactivated state or one of the activated or momentarily inhibited states depending on the result of said comparing (see paragraph 0051 for a lane change being “suspended” based on “various kinds of information”. See paragraph 0050 for that information including “traffic regulation information and current position”. See paragraphs 0041-0042 for being in a lane change suspected section related to compliance with traffic regulations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch and Maruyama, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Maruyama. The motivation for doing so would be to comply with traffic regulations and road conditions, as recognized by Maruyama (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 14, Resch and Emura teach the control method as claimed in claim 12.
Yet Resch and Emura do not further teach:
The control method as claimed in claim 12, wherein,
when said function changes to the deactivated state, the acquisition and comparison steps are stopped, whereas, when said function changes to the momentarily inhibited state, the acquisition and comparison steps continue.
However, Maruyama teaches:
when said function changes to the deactivated state, the acquisition and comparison steps are stopped, whereas, when said function changes to the momentarily inhibited state, the acquisition and comparison steps continue (see paragraph 0056 in which a driver can always cancel the lane change. At that point the lane change is canceled. See also Fig. 3 for the end of N out of S104. But if the driver does not override the lane change, the system according to paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0050-0051 will continue to check to see if the vehicle is in a lane change allowed section.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Resch and Maruyama, to add the additional features as indicated as being taught by Maruyama. The motivation for doing so would be to comply with traffic regulations and road conditions, as recognized by Maruyama (see paragraphs 0580 and 0588).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Yamada (US2017/0210394). See paragraph 0117 for: In a case where a traffic lane change is disabled temporarily because there is another vehicle on a lane which is a destination of movement, there is under construction, or there is a traffic lane change disable section, generation unit 12 performs a display such as “trying” until traffic lane change control is established, and may draw a predicted trajectory at a timing at which processing becomes executable.
See paragraph 0064 for: In step S10, in a case where the determined control command is a cancel command (Y in S10), cancel is displayed (S110), and the process ends. In step S13, in a case where there is no control command determined in step S9, an input error is displayed (S111), and the process ends. Automatic driving controller 20 periodically detects the own vehicle position information, the own vehicle traveling road information, and the own vehicle peripheral information from detection unit 40. Since the own vehicle peripheral situation constantly changes, after the control command is output to automatic driving controller 20, there is a case where it is determined that the control command is not executable. For example, after a following instruction, there is a case where other cars interrupt between the own vehicle and another vehicle. In a case where it is determined that the control command is executable by automatic driving controller 20 (Y in S17), generation unit 12 displays that the control is being performed on display unit 31 (S18), and starts counting by activating a timer (S19). In a case where it is determined that the control is not executable by automatic driving controller 20 (N in S17), generation unit 12 displays a control disable error on display unit 31 (S112).
Nishira (US2004/0107030). See Figs 6 and 8 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
568
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fuji (US2018/0345978) teaches in the Abstract: A steering assist system includes: a first sensor; a second sensor; and an electronic control unit. The electronic control unit is configured to start a lane change assist control when another vehicle obstructing a lane change is detected; detect a progress status of the lane change; stop the lane change assist control, when the first sensor detects an approaching vehicle; execute a center return assist control when the lane change assist control is stopped in a former part of the lane change; and execute a collision avoidance assist control when the lane change assist control is stopped in a latter part of the lane change. See Figs. 5, 10, and 14 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
881
651
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
558
877
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
550
879
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sugawara (US2018/0188735). See paragraph 0054 for risk tolerances and timer for aborting the lane change. See the figures below.
PNG
media_image6.png
805
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Suzuki (US2021/0114618). See paragraph 0091 for: The processor 10 of the information provision apparatus 100 generates the cause information in which the content of the cause of a change in the driving plan is expressed in text, and transmits the generated cause information to the user terminal apparatus 300. The cause of a change in the driving plan is expressed by text information and can therefore be accurately conveyed to the user. The cause information may include not only the “cause” itself but also those which can be classified into a state (temporary stop/not allowed to change lanes/closed traffic/route change), those which can be classified into a result (delay/stop), and countermeasures (detour). Examples of the cause information include, but are not limited to, “Lane change was not possible,” “Lane change was not possible due to congestion.” “It takes time to arrive due to congestion.” “Traffic is congested. Another route will be used to avoid congestion.” “Traffic is restricted due to construction. Another route will be used.” “Traffic is closed due to an accident. Another route will be used.” and “Vehicle will make a stop to allow an ambulance vehicle to pass.”
Gate (U.S. 11,560,154) Allow AV user to override lane prohibition and permit shoulder riding.
Silver (US20190130736). Teaches detecting traffic redirection
Fairfield (U.S. 10,761,542) teaches detecting a construction sign
Klesing (US2021/0347376). Paragraphs 0033-0034 define a “first autonomous action” and a second autonomous action using an example: An autonomous vehicle is traveling on a route and the driver or sensors see a tree branch in the road (“first environmental condition”). The vehicle system may determine that the host vehicle can run over the branch without causing harm to the driver. Yet the driver may prefer to go around the branch. So the driver may send a “driver input” to the system by tugging the steering wheel one way or the other. The intent of the driver is to signal to the autonomous vehicle that, instead of maintaining the wheels 22 on course (i.e., maintaining the “first autonomous action”), the driver prefers to maneuver around the branch (i.e., engage a “second autonomous action”). Based on this data input, which happens to be a driver input, the vehicle determines if the preferred maneuver around the first environmental condition presents a hazardous condition. For example, if a motorcycle is in the lane that the host vehicle might change into (i.e., if there is a “second environmental condition” exists in the neighboring lane), the system will not change lanes. In this sense, the driver input of a preferred second autonomous action is not so much a command as a suggestion. The system 100 can override the driver. Paragraph 0035 goes on to teach that the system 100 may display a first and second autonomous actions to the driver. Klesing is similar to Emura et al. (US2018/0093676).
Lee (US2023/0043586). See paragraph 0056 for “Laws and/or regulations set for each country or region may be different, but as an example, the minimum speed at which the automatic lane change function can operate may be prescribed according to the following Equation 1.” See paragraph 0115 for “In particular, the controller 430 may calculate the minimum speed at which the automatic lane change is operable to comply with the laws and/or regulations of the relevant country or region based on the maximum speed limit of the road.”
Kato et al. (US2020/0307594). See paragraph 0078 for comparing a pattern of road lanes, such as solid or broken lines from a camera 10 to map information 62 to determine an “automated driving permitted section” and a “host lane” and an “adjacent lane”. See paragraph 0152 for permitting a lane change only when “laws” and “regulations” permit it.
Debouk et al. (US2011/0241862). Teaches a timer for changing lanes.
Takae (U.S. 10,259,459). Teaches that if a lane change has not been executed autonomously before a timer expires, the lane change will be canceled. Takae teaches asking a driver if he wants to perform an overtaking maneuver. In Takae the lane change is not specifically one that does not fully cross over into the adjacent lane. See Takae, col. 21, lines 12-27, for asking the vehicle passenger if he wants to “‘change lanes to overtake’ or stay in the original travel lane.” This is one embodiment. Col 25, lines 46-51 teach an option “a2” in which a driver is presented with options but the default option (which is learned) is carried out if not selection is made. There is also option a3, which is just performing a pass or not, while giving an option to cancel or continue. Finally, option a4 is: just do what is going to be done with no option given to the driver for canceling or continuing. See Takae, col. 4, lines 6-29, for an announcement device that inquiries whether a passenger wants to change lanes to overtake an obstacle. See col. 21, lines 58-60 for an announcement in response stating “now changing lanes to overtake the preceding vehicle”.
Sugawara (JP2009274594A). Teaches a lane change support device. Teaches at least a system to turn off lane keeping when passengers wants to lane change, unless there is an obstacle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
