DETAILED ACTION
Abstract
Abstract submitted by applicant is currently over 150 words. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant disclosed “additional ramp-out phase”, however an initial ramp-out phase is not mentioned prior. Examiner suggests removing “additional”.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant disclosed “a higher the collision-relevancy” and “a lower the collision-relevancy”. Examiner suggests removing “the” from both sections.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant discloses “vehicle acceleration of -1m/s--2, at a minimum”. Specified acceleration is unclear whether intended possible range is -1.1m/s--2, -1.2m/s--2, and so on, or -0.9m/s--2, -0.8m/s--2, and so on. Examiner will examine based on the former.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant disclosed “additional ramp-out phase”, however an initial ramp-out phase is not mentioned prior. Examiner suggests removing “additional”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 – 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 19, the use of the phrase “and/or” repeatedly renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention See MPEP 2173.05(h)(II). Claims 3, 6 – 7, 9 – 10, 12, 15 – 17, and 20 are rejected as they are dependent on rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 3, applicant claims that the braking request is bother “stronger than a higher collision relevancy of the second target-object” and also “weaker than a lower collision relevancy of the second target-object”. It is unclear how the braking request can be both stronger and weaker than the collision relevancy of the same second target-object.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the phrase "e.g." means “for example” and therefore renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the exemplary limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 12 is rejected for depending from Claim 11.
Additionally, Claim 11 claims an additional ramp out phase “just in case objects are detected in the surrounding of the vehicle”. It is unclear when the additional ramp out phase is necessary. Furthermore, it states that the ramp out phase would be the same whether the object is the same lane as if the object were not in the same lane. It is unclear as to why these situations would result in the same action, since the collision relevancy would be very different between the two situations (in the same lane vs. in an adjacent lane). Claim 12 is rejected for depending from Claim 11.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4 – 10, 15 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20200055500 A1), hereinafter referred to as Meyer, in view of Doerr, et. al. (US 20060097570 A1), hereinafter referred to as Doerr, further in view of Breuer, et. al. (US 11427167 B2), hereinafter referred to as Breuer.
Regarding Claim 1:
A method for braking a vehicle, comprising the steps of
detecting an object in a surrounding of the vehicle;
Meyer discloses “The autonomous emergency braking operations may be designed in particular to avoid a collision with the forward object 2, and/or also to reduce the accident severity of an accident with the forward object 2.” (Meyer, [0027]). The “forward object” taught by Meyer is synonymous with “object in a surrounding of the vehicle” disclosed by the applicant.
determining, if a collision between the vehicle and the detected object is imminent or likely to occur, wherein the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant first target-object in case a collision is imminent or likely to occur; initiating or triggering an emergency braking process, if the object is treated as a collision-relevant first target-object, by successively
Meyer discloses “The method includes picking up driving dynamics variables of the ego-vehicle, picking up distance measurement signals, and ascertaining at least one longitudinal distance of the ego-vehicle from a forward object. The method further includes determining whether an emergency braking operation is to be initiated on the basis of the driving dynamics variables and the distance measurement signals.” (Meyer, [0009]).
initiating a warning to a driver of the vehicle, in a first warning phase;
Meyer discloses “Furthermore, haptic warning phases are known, in which the driver is notified of the imminent initiation of an emergency braking phase haptically, i.e. as a braking jolt, by means of a light braking operation.” (Meyer, [0006]).
initiating a partial braking of the vehicle with a predetermined, constant or continuously increasing haptic warning phase, in a haptic warning phase; and afterwards
Meyer discloses “In a subsequent haptic warning phase or partial braking warning phase II (HCW, haptic collision warning), an autonomous partial braking operation takes place” (Meyer, [0031]).
initiating a full braking of the vehicle with a predetermined emergency braking request, in an emergency braking phase;
Meyer discloses “In a subsequent emergency braking phase III (AEB, autonomous emergency braking), an emergency braking operation then takes place… The emergency braking acceleration… achieved is therefore preferably an acceleration of the maximum braking operation” (Meyer, [0032]).
wherein, during the emergency braking process, it is continuously determined if the first target-object is still collision-relevant, and, in case the first target-object becomes collision-irrelevant during carrying out the emergency braking process, meaning that a collision between the vehicle and the first target-object is not imminent or not likely to occur any more, the haptic warning phase, if active, or the emergency braking phase, if active, is aborted, wherein
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the “continuous monitor[ing]” of Breuer, because continuous monitoring for collision-relevant objects provides the vehicle with the most current information of the surroundings and to prevent unnecessary stops.
the partial braking request, after abortion of the haptic warning phase, or the emergency braking request, after abortion of the emergency braking phase, is decreased in an additional ramp-out phase;
Doerr discloses “when the driver is active and/or when the risk of a rear end collision is reduced, a driver warning which has already been triggered can be terminated and/or changed and/or it is possible for the automatic emergency braking process not to be triggered” (Doerr, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the termination of the emergency braking taught by Doerr because without the initial reasoning for initializing the emergency braking, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to terminate the process.
wherein, during the additional ramp-out phase, it is continuously determined if a collision between the vehicle and a detected object in the surrounding is imminent or likely to occur,
wherein the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant second target-object in case a collision is imminent or likely to occur,
Meyer discloses “The method includes picking up driving dynamics variables of the ego-vehicle, picking up distance measurement signals, and ascertaining at least one longitudinal distance of the ego-vehicle from a forward object. The method further includes determining whether an emergency braking operation is to be initiated on the basis of the driving dynamics variables and the distance measurement signals.” (Meyer, [0009]).
wherein in case the object is treated as a collision-relevant second target-object the emergency braking process is resumed by initiating a braking of the vehicle with a braking request depending on
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
a collision-relevancy of the second target-object, and/or
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
a warning time already elapsed during the emergency braking process and/or a predetermined warning threshold.
Breuer discloses “On the other hand, however, the vehicle velocity of the ego vehicle, for which a high probability of collision was ascertained, is to be reduced simultaneously within a short time, in order to avoid a collision and an incorrect decision. This is taken into consideration by the legally defined minimum value.” (Breuer, Column 5 Lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the “continuous monitor[ing]” of Breuer, because continuous monitoring for collision-relevant objects provides the vehicle with the most current information of the surroundings and to prevent unnecessary stops.
Regarding Claim 2:
The method according to claim 1, wherein in case the object is treated as a collision-relevant second target-object the emergency braking process is resumed, independent or dependent on the collision-relevancy of the second target-object,
in the haptic warning phase by initiating a partial braking of the vehicle with the predetermined, constant or continuously increasing partial braking request, or
Meyer discloses “Furthermore, haptic warning phases are known, in which the driver is notified of the imminent initiation of an emergency braking phase haptically, i.e. as a braking jolt, by means of a light braking operation.” (Meyer, [0006]).
in the emergency braking phase by initiating a full braking of the vehicle with the predetermined emergency braking request, depending on the warning time already elapsed during the emergency braking process and/or the predetermined warning threshold.
Meyer discloses “The rating of the dynamic criterion, at least in some situations or traffic situations, can involve a partial braking effect during the haptic warning phase being heeded. In this context, it is recognized that in the haptic warning phase the light braking effect admittedly serves only as haptic feedback to the driver at first; however, this already achieves a certain braking effect that can certainly be heeded in order to ascertain the times for initiating the phases. It is therefore possible for a superior braking effect and hence overall shortening of the emergency braking process consisting of the multiple phases to be ascertained” (Meyer, [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4:
The method according to claim 1, wherein, during ramp-out-phase, the partial braking request or the emergency braking request is decreased to a ramp-out braking request in dependence of a predetermined ramp-out time and/or a predetermined braking gradient.
Meyer discloses “The control device 6 outputs braking signals S2 to wheel brakes 8 in order to perform a braking operation, which therefore produces a negative acceleration, i.e. a first longitudinal acceleration a1 having a negative value.” (Meyer, [0024]).
Regarding Claim 5:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the ramp-out braking request corresponds to a vehicle acceleration of -1m/s2, at a minimum, and/or the predetermined ramp-out time is set to 0.5s, at a minimum.
Meyer discloses “The control device 6 outputs braking signals S2 to wheel brakes 8 in order to perform a braking operation, which therefore produces a negative acceleration, i.e. a first longitudinal acceleration a1 having a negative value.” (Meyer, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to find routine optimal ranges for vehicle acceleration values. See MPEP 2143(e).
Regarding Claim 6:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the ramp-out braking request is set in such a way, that braking lights of the vehicle are continuously activated during ramp-out phase.
Meyer discloses “Advantageously, a brake light signal S4 is already output to brake lights 10 of the ego-vehicle 1 during the first warning phase I, so that the attention of the traffic behind is drawn to the imminent braking operation.” (Meyer, [0033]).
Lee discloses “a brake light may be the first emergency module, which may be turned on from a time when a stop strategy for reducing or minimizing risk is performed and may continue maintaining the turn-on until a critical situation is resolved. In this case, the brake light may continue maintaining the turn-on state although the brake is not operated after the vehicle stops according to the stop strategy.” (Lee, [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the continued usage of the brake light taught by Lee because the purpose of a brake light is to indicate to the driver behind that the specified vehicle is in a braking mode. If, in this automatic vehicle braking system, includes the ramp-out phase as a part of the braking system, it would make sense to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to keep the light on until the entire braking mode is complete.
Regarding Claim 7:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the additional ramp-out phase is completed once the ramp-out braking request is reached.
Meyer discloses “If the driver himself actively operates the brake or initiates a driver braking process during the warning phase I and/or the partial braking warning phase II, this driver braking operation can have priority, or the partial braking operation and the driver braking operation can be heeded according to the maximum value principle, i.e. the higher braking pressure of the two is applied.” (Meyer, [0034]).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the warning time is counted during
the first warning phase, and
the haptic warning phase and/or during a partial braking of the vehicle with the predetermined, constant or continuously increasing partial braking request is initiated, wherein the emergency braking phase and/or a full braking of the vehicle with a predetermined emergency braking request is initiated only after the warning time exceeds a predetermined warning-threshold.
Meyer discloses “In this case, the control device 6 in particular uses the dynamic motion equations, inter alia equations GL1, GL2, to calculate the first starting time t1 for initiating the warning phase 1, the second starting time t2 for initiating the partial braking phase II and the third starting time t3 for initiating the emergency braking phase III, and the periods Δt_I, Δt_II and Δt_III of the three phases I, II, III, with e.g. the emergency braking operation being complete at the time t4, e.g. a standstill (v1=0) or else a collision being able to occur at t4.” (Meyer, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 9:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the warning time is not reset after abortion of the haptic warning phase, if was active, or the emergency braking phase, if was active, once the first target-object becomes collision-irrelevant and the additional ramp-out phase is triggered.
Meyer discloses “This calculation on the basis of FIG. 3 takes place even though subsequently a haptic partial braking warning phase II of this kind is preferably nevertheless supposed to be initiated at the time t2.” (Meyer, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 10:
The method according to claim 9, wherein counting of the warning time is continued during ramp-out phase or is paused during ramp-out phase.
Meyer discloses “In this case, the control device 6 in particular uses the dynamic motion equations, inter alia equations GL1, GL2, to calculate the first starting time t1 for initiating the warning phase 1, the second starting time t2 for initiating the partial braking phase II and the third starting time t3 for initiating the emergency braking phase III, and the periods Δt_I, Δt_II and Δt_III of the three phases I, II, III, with e.g. the emergency braking operation being complete at the time t4, e.g. a standstill (v1=0) or else a collision being able to occur at t4.” (Meyer, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 15:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined warning-threshold is, in particular, between 1.4s and 1.5s.
Breuer discloses “On the other hand, however, the vehicle velocity of the ego vehicle, for which a high probability of collision was ascertained, is to be reduced simultaneously within a short time, in order to avoid a collision and an incorrect decision. This is taken into consideration by the legally defined minimum value.” (Breuer, Column 5 Lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date that the “legally defined minimum value” would be within an optimal range. See MPEP 2143(e).
Regarding Claim 16:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined partial braking request corresponds to a vehicle acceleration of -3m/s2 or above.
Meyer discloses “The control device 6 outputs braking signals S2 to wheel brakes 8 in order to perform a braking operation, which therefore produces a negative acceleration, i.e. a first longitudinal acceleration a1 having a negative value.” (Meyer, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to find routine optimal ranges for vehicle acceleration values. See MPEP 2143(e).
Regarding Claim 17:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined emergency braking request for full braking corresponds to a vehicle acceleration of -4m/s2 or below, in particular -6m/s2.
Meyer discloses “The control device 6 outputs braking signals S2 to wheel brakes 8 in order to perform a braking operation, which therefore produces a negative acceleration, i.e. a first longitudinal acceleration a1 having a negative value.” (Meyer, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to find routine optimal ranges for vehicle acceleration values. See MPEP 2143(e).
Regarding Claim 18:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the emergency braking process is aborted after the additional ramp-out phase is completed, if it is determined, that a collision between the vehicle and a detected object in the surrounding is not imminent or is not likely to occur, and/or no object is treated as a second target-object.
Doerr discloses “when the driver is active and/or when the risk of a rear end collision is reduced, a driver warning which has already been triggered can be terminated and/or changed and/or it is possible for the automatic emergency braking process not to be triggered” (Doerr, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the termination of the emergency braking taught by Doerr because without the initial reasoning for initializing the emergency braking, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to terminate the process.
Regarding Claim 19:
An emergency braking system for a vehicle, in particular for carrying out the method, according to claim 1, comprising:
a sensor system configured to capture a surrounding of the vehicle and provide sensor-signals comprising the surrounding,
Meyer discloses “The ego-vehicle 1 has a distance sensor 4, e.g. based on radar, based on ultrasound or as a camera system” (Meyer, [0024]).
an object recognition unit configured to identify and detect objects in the surrounding by processing sensor-signals,
Meyer discloses “The ego-vehicle 1 has a distance sensor 4, e.g. based on radar, based on ultrasound or as a camera system for detecting the longitudinal distance dx, which outputs a relative-distance measurement signal S1 to a control device 6 of a driving dynamics system 5.” (Meyer, [0024]).
an AEBS-control-unit having an AEBS-algorithm for determining, if a collision between the vehicle and the detected object is imminent or likely to occur, wherein the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant first target-object in case a collision is imminent or likely to occur;
Meyer discloses “The method includes picking up driving dynamics variables of the ego-vehicle, picking up distance measurement signals, and ascertaining at least one longitudinal distance of the ego-vehicle from a forward object. The method further includes determining whether an emergency braking operation is to be initiated on the basis of the driving dynamics variables and the distance measurement signals.” (Meyer, [0009]).
wherein the AEBS-control-unit or the AEBS-algorithm is further configured to: initiate or trigger an emergency braking process, if said the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant first target-object, by successively
initiating a warning to a driver of the vehicle, in a first warning phase;
Meyer discloses “Furthermore, haptic warning phases are known, in which the driver is notified of the imminent initiation of an emergency braking phase haptically, i.e. as a braking jolt, by means of a light braking operation.” (Meyer, [0006]).
initiating a partial braking of the vehicle with a predetermined, constant or continuously increasing partial braking request, in a haptic warning phase; and afterwards
initiating a full braking of the vehicle with a predetermined emergency braking request, in an emergency braking phase;
Meyer discloses “In a subsequent emergency braking phase III (AEB, autonomous emergency braking), an emergency braking operation then takes place… The emergency braking acceleration… achieved is therefore preferably an acceleration of the maximum braking operation” (Meyer, [0032]).
wherein the AEBS-control-unit or the AEBS-algorithm is further configured
to continuously determine, during the emergency braking process, if the first target- object is still collision-relevant, and
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the “continuous monitor[ing]” of Breuer, because there would be no reason for a car to not continue to search for collision-relevant objects in range.
to abort the haptic warning phase, if active, or the emergency braking phase, if active, in case the first target-object becomes collision-irrelevant during carrying out the emergency braking process, meaning that a collision between the vehicle and the first target-object is not imminent or not likely to occur any more, and to decrease the partial braking request, after abortion of the haptic warning phase, or the emergency braking request, after abortion of the emergency braking phase, in an additional ramp-out phase;
Doerr discloses “when the driver is active and/or when the risk of a rear end collision is reduced, a driver warning which has already been triggered can be terminated and/or changed and/or it is possible for the automatic emergency braking process not to be triggered” (Doerr, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the termination of the emergency braking taught by Doerr because without the initial reasoning for initializing the emergency braking, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to terminate the process.
wherein the AEBS-control-unit or the AEBS-algorithm is further configured to continuously determine, during the additional ramp-out phase, if a collision between the vehicle and a detected object in the surrounding is imminent or likely to occur, wherein the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant second target-object in case a collision is imminent or likely to occur,
Meyer discloses “The method includes picking up driving dynamics variables of the ego-vehicle, picking up distance measurement signals, and ascertaining at least one longitudinal distance of the ego-vehicle from a forward object. The method further includes determining whether an emergency braking operation is to be initiated on the basis of the driving dynamics variables and the distance measurement signals.” (Meyer, [0009]).
wherein in case said the detected object is treated as a collision-relevant second target-object, the AEBS-control-unit or the AEBS-algorithm is configured to resume the emergency braking process by initiating a braking of the vehicle with a braking request depending on
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
a collision-relevancy of the second target-object, and/or
Breuer discloses “the respective driving dynamics parameter is continuously monitored in particular during emergency braking and if the driving dynamics limiting value is not complied with, this causes a reaction of an adaptation of the vehicle setpoint deceleration until the driving dynamics limiting value is complied with again.” (Breuer, Column 4 Lines 24-29).
a warning time already elapsed during the emergency braking process and/or a predetermined warning threshold.
Breuer discloses “On the other hand, however, the vehicle velocity of the ego vehicle, for which a high probability of collision was ascertained, is to be reduced simultaneously within a short time, in order to avoid a collision and an incorrect decision. This is taken into consideration by the legally defined minimum value.” (Breuer, Column 5 Lines 46-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Meyer with the “continuous monitor[ing]” of Breuer, because there would be no reason for a car to not continue to search for collision-relevant objects in range.
Regarding Claim 20:
A vehicle, comprising the emergency braking system according to claim 19.
Meyer discloses “When designing an external driving dynamics system 5, XBR commands (external brake requests) are produced and processed in order to initiate an autonomous braking operation, provision being able to be made for this by in particular a first control device for the driving dynamics system 5 and a further control device for the braking system of the ego-vehicle 1” (Meyer, [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose the combinations of limitations found in Claims 11 – 14. The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Although Meyer, Doerr, and Breuer teach the system of Claim 1, they do not teach a combination of features that would include triggering the ramp-out phase “just in case” or “regardless of whether” objects are detected in the surrounding of the vehicle, nor setting a target-object as “collision-irrelevant” if the vehicle and/or the target-object changes lanes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights