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 .
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 6-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the steps of :
detecting, by a surroundings sensor system of the vehicle…..;
planning, by the vehicle,……;
reducing, by the vehicle……..;
checking, by the vehicle………, etc.
The claim and specification do not indicate a processor for performing the above actions. A sensor a shown quite all right, but it is nit shown how the sensor is connected to a processor or vehicle, etc in order for the vehicle to perform the steps cited in the claim.
Further, in claim 6, the phrase, “….the other following vehicles, which are within a rear sensor range of…..” lacks antecedent basis because the rejected phrase is different from the phrase, “other following vehicles”. The word, “which” may be deleted to overcome the rejection.
Furthermore, the phrase, “checking, by the vehicle, whether the other following vehicles ………… are located in a lane of the vehicle and in an overtaking lane” is confusing because the specification and drawings do not disclose the recited, “other following vehicles ………… are located in a lane of the vehicle AND in an overtaking lane”, emphasis added.
Furthermore, the phrase, “reducing, by the vehicle responsive to the checking indicating that at least one of the other following vehicles is only located in a same lane as the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis.
Furthermore, it is confusing why the claim recites the phrase, “…….only located in…”. The term, “only” is confusing since the at least one of the other following vehicles is NOT only located in a same lane as the vehicle.
In claim 8, it is advisable to delete the number “4” to follow USA standards. In addition, in claim 8, “a safety distance from the vehicle” is not defined.
In claim 8, the phrase, “another one of the following vehicles (4) driving in the overtaking lane is determined from a reaction distance, a braking distance, and a safety distance from the vehicle in the overtaking lane following braking carried out by the another one of the following vehicles.” Is not clear. Is one of the recited, “distance” considered or all of them are considered. If all of them are considered than it is requested that applicant explain how. It is worthy to consider that no processor or algorithm or mathematical formula is disclosed when considering the recited, “….distance…”.
In claim 9, “the other following vehicles that has already overtaken the vehicle” is not clear and lacks antecedent basis.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the rejected base claim. Applicant is advised to look through the rest of the claims and make corrections using the example provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art, US 20190317499 A1, US 20180370527 A1 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights