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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/2025 and 4/24/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rangwala (US 2016/0318511 A1).
For claims 1, 6 and 10, Rangwala discloses a vehicle control system for a subject vehicle comprising: a group of sensors configured to: sense a distance between the subject vehicle and a rear vehicle traveling on a rear side relative to the subject vehicle and a vehicle speed of the rear vehicle; a distance between the subject vehicle and an oncoming vehicle traveling in a neighbouring lane to a driving lane of the subject vehicle and a vehicle speed of the oncoming vehicle (Para. 0003, 0028, 0040, where group of sensors monitoring the situations, distances and locations of other vehicles and objects); and
a lateral localization of the subject vehicle in the driving lane (Para. 0037, where lateral positions of the vehicles are being monitored and modified); and a processor, by executing a program stored in a non-transitory storage medium, configured to process (i) the distance between the subject vehicle and the rear vehicle and the vehicle speed of the rear vehicle sensed by the group of sensors (Para. 0003, 0028, 0040), (ii) the distance between the subject vehicle and the oncoming vehicle and the vehicle speed of the oncoming vehicle sensed by the group of sensors (Para. 0038, 0048, where the locations and speed of the surrounding objects are monitored), and (iii) the lateral localization of the subject vehicle sensed by the group of sensors for generating an output signal to reduce a vehicle speed of the subject vehicle or steer the subject vehicle to a side of the driving lane of the subject vehicle such that the rear vehicle passes the subject vehicle while avoiding a collision between the subject vehicle and the rear vehicle (Para. 0037, 0038, where the vehicle adjusting the speed and/or lateral position in order to prevent the overtaking vehicle to collide with the upcoming vehicle).
For claim 2, Rangwala discloses the method for controlling the subject vehicle according to claim 1, wherein determining the driving situation of the subject vehicle includes determining the vehicle speed of the subject vehicle and/or a position of the subject vehicle in a driving lane in which the subject vehicle is traveling (Para. 0030, 0035, 0037, 0038, where the speed and positions associated with the subject vehicle are monitored).
For claim 9, Rangwala discloses the vehicle control system for the subject vehicle according claim 6, wherein the processing means is configured to consider a length of the subject vehicle (Para. 0050, where the length of the truck, which is the subject vehicle is considered in the control operation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For claim(s) 3 and 7, Rangwala discloses determining a vehicle speed of the rear vehicle, a distance between the rear vehicle and the subject vehicle, a vehicle speed of an oncoming vehicle as the oncoming traffic and a distance between the oncoming vehicle and the subject vehicle (Para. 0035, 0038, 0048), but does not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically determining a time to collision between the oncoming vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the vehicle speed of the rear vehicle, the distance between the rear vehicle and the subject vehicle, the vehicle speed of the oncoming vehicle, and the distance between the oncoming vehicle and the subject vehicle; determining a driving distance of the subject vehicle to a collision point between the oncoming vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the time to collision between the oncoming vehicle and the rear vehicle, the vehicle speed of the rear vehicle, and the vehicle speed of the oncoming vehicle; and determining a time to collision of the subject vehicle to the collision point between the oncoming vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the driving distance of the subject vehicle to the collision point between the oncoming vehicle and the rear vehicle and the vehicle speed of the subject vehicle.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 8 depend(s) on claims 3 and 7 respectively, requiring all the depended limitations/features would also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2013/0060401 A1) Hahne discloses vehicle overtaking scenario where the vehicles coordinate to avoid collision between oncoming and overtaking vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights