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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 11-24 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2024/063557 filed on 05/16/2024 & foreign priority for DE foreign application DE10 2023 113 834.0 filed on 05/25/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 23 should be after Claim 22 and not after Claim 24. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a navigation module” in claims 11, 15.
“an other-vehicle recognition module” in claim 11.
“an assistance module” in claims 11, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 20.
“one external unit” in claim 15.
“one output device” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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.
Upon reviewing the specification, the corresponding structure for different modules are found, such as the navigation module, other-vehicle recognition module and assistance module as seen in [0009] The navigation module and/or the other-vehicle recognition module and/or the assistance module can be implemented in a common software and/or hardware module. Alternatively thereto, the navigation module and/or the other-vehicle recognition module and/or the assistance module can be implemented in separate software and/or hardware modules. [0048] According to a further independent aspect of the present disclosure, a software (SW) program is provided. The SW program can be configured to be executed on one or more processors and to thus carry out the driving assistance method described in this document. [0051] According to a further independent aspect of the present disclosure, a driving assistance system is provided. The driving assistance system comprises one or more processors; and at least one memory which is connected to the one or more processors and contains instructions which can be executed by the one or more processors in order to carry out the driving assistance method described in this document. [0052] A processor or a processor module is a programmable computing mechanism, thus a machine or an electronic circuit which controls other elements according to transferred commands and advances an algorithm (process) in this case. [0053] Exemplary embodiments of the disclosure are shown in the figures and will be described in more detail hereinafter. Furthermore, structure for the external unit can be seen in [0023] The at least one external unit preferably comprises at least one other vehicle and/or one central unit and/or one technical traffic infrastructure. [0024] The at least one other vehicle that represents the at least one external unit preferably comprises or is the other vehicle, which is possibly to be overtaken, and/or another other vehicle in the vehicle surroundings. [0025] In some embodiments, information with respect to the distance and/or time until reaching the event (for example a geoposition of the exit or of the beginning of the curve) and/or the at least one vehicle property of the other vehicle (for example speed data and/or navigation route) can be transmitted immediately or directly, for example, via a V2V communication connection or a mobile network, V2I communication connection, from the at least one other vehicle to the ego vehicle. [0026] The at least one external unit preferably comprises, or is, a central unit, such as a server or a backend. Therefore, the information with respect to the distance and/or time until reaching the event (for example a geoposition of the exit or of the beginning of the curve) and/or the at least one vehicle property of the other vehicle (for example speed data) can be transmitted mediately or indirectly, for example, from the at least one other vehicle to the ego vehicle. For this purpose, both the ego vehicle and the at least one other vehicle can communicate, for example, via a mobile network with the central unit; the at least one other vehicle can send the information to the central unit, and the central unit can then forward the information to the ego vehicle. [0027] The at least one external unit preferably comprises, or is, a technical infrastructure. Finally, structure for the output device can be found as seen in [0043] The vehicle preferably comprises at least one output device for outputting the driver notifications, such as optical and/or acoustic warnings and/or information. The at least one output device can comprise at least one display device and/or at least one loudspeaker. The at least one display device can comprise a display, in particular an LCD display, a plasma display or an OLED display. Additionally or alternatively, the at least one display device can comprise a projection device configured to show information directly in the field of view of the driver, in particular to project it on a windshield. In some embodiments, the at least one display device can be a central information output device of an infotainment system, such as a head unit or a pillar-to-pillar display. The at least one output device is preferably permanently installed in the vehicle.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "time" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “surroundings data" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a surroundings sensor system" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "external information" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "at least one external unit" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a system, claim 22 is directed to a method and claim 24 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. Therefore, claims 11, 22 and 24 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claims 22 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 11 as discussed here. Claim 11 recites:
A driving assistance system for a vehicle, comprising:
a navigation module configured to provide a travel route for the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is located on a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route, wherein the travel route comprises an event,
an other-vehicle recognition module configured to determine at least one vehicle property of at least one other vehicle located in front of the vehicle on the first lane;
and an assistance module configured to decide, based on a distance and/or time until reaching the event and the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle, whether or not an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine …” and “decide …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driving assistance system for a vehicle, comprising:
a navigation module configured to provide a travel route for the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is located on a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route, wherein the travel route comprises an event,
an other-vehicle recognition module configured to determine at least one vehicle property of at least one other vehicle located in front of the vehicle on the first lane;
and an assistance module configured to decide, based on a distance and/or time until reaching the event and the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle, whether or not an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the provide step from a navigation module is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 24 further recite “A driving assistance system for a vehicle, comprising: a navigation module”, “an other-vehicle recognition module”, “and an assistance module” and “A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed on one or more processors, carries out the acts of” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitation of receiving information for navigation is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-21 and 23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims merely have additional limitations such as “decide”, “determine”, “actuate” and “carry out”. Examiner would like to note that claim 20 might be able to help with 101 however as it is currently written with and/or, it does not. Therefore, dependent claims 12-21 and 23 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims.
Therefore, claims 11-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claim, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Claims 11-16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet WO2019166084A1 (English Translation) in view of Taniguchi (US 20220203992 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Gillet teaches A driving assistance system for a vehicle, comprising (see at least [¶01-02 & 05-06]):
wherein the vehicle is located on a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route, wherein the travel route comprises an event (The vehicle is located in a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route/path. The travel route/path can have an event such as a rection in lanes. The path of the vehicle is decided by the navigation system of the vehicle and augmented with map and sensor information. see at least [¶042, 070, 075, 081-082, FIG 2A & FIG 8]),
an other-vehicle recognition module configured to determine at least one vehicle property of at least one other vehicle located in front of the vehicle on the first lane (Determining a vehicle property of another vehicle located in the front of the vehicle on the first lane. see at least [¶023, 027-030, 083 & 086]);
and an assistance module configured to decide, based on a distance and/or time until reaching the event and the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle, whether or not an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out (Deciding based on the distance (time would also be a factor in this determinization) until reaching the event and the vehicle property of the other vehicle, that an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the other vehicle should be carried out or not. see at least [¶030, 086-090 & 099-0101]).
Gillet does not explicitly teach a navigation module configured to provide a travel route for the vehicle.
Shall be noted that Gillet teaches to autonomously navigate a vehicle and decide that on overtaking maneuver should be performed on a path to a destination (indicating that a travel route/path should be provided to the vehicle). (see at least “[¶070] The system is configured to autonomously drive the vehicle. The system needs to ensure that the vehicle can navigate with a minimum intervention from driver. For this reason the automated driving should be such that stressful or frightening driving situations are avoided as far as possible. Therefore it is required in some case to prohibit automatic overtaking to mitigate risk, in case the determined road profile is not appropriate for a safe overtaking.” … “[¶082] In step S20 the distance available for the overtaking is determined as a function of at least one of an available distance until a detected lane merging area on the scheduled path (step S18), and an available distance until a detected exit lane on the scheduled path (step S19) (in case a navigation destination is set).”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Breed.
Taniguchi does teach a navigation module configured to provide a travel route for the vehicle (A navigation device that provides a travel route for the vehicle. see at least [¶024 & 033]);
Taniguchi would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking assist for a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet to use the technique of providing a navigation module configured to provide a travel route for the vehicle as taught by Taniguchi. Doing so would lead to improved determination that an overtaking maneuver should be performed on the travel route of the vehicle (see at least [¶0240]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 23, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claims 11 and 22 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the event comprises an exit from the multilane route section and/or a cornering action and/or a reduction of a number of lanes (The event can comprise an exit from a multilane route/path section or a reduction in the number of lanes. see at least [¶040-041 & FIB 2A-2B]).
Regarding Claim 13, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle comprises one or more of: a vehicle speed of the other vehicle; an acceleration behavior of the other vehicle; a deceleration behavior of the other vehicle; lateral guidance of the other vehicle; or a status of a direction indicator of the other vehicle (The vehicle property of the other vehicle can include the vehicle speed of the other vehicle. see at least [¶083, 086 & 099]).
Regarding Claim 14, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle comprises the vehicle speed of the other vehicle (The vehicle property of the other vehicle can include the vehicle speed of the other vehicle. see at least [¶083, 086 & 099]),
and the assistance module is configured to decide, in consideration of the distance and/or the time until reaching the event, that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out when the vehicle speed of the at least one other vehicle is less than a vehicle speed of the vehicle and to decide that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is not to be carried out when the vehicle speed of the at least one other vehicle is equal to or greater than the vehicle speed of the vehicle (Deciding, in consideration on the distance (time would also be a factor in this determinization) until reaching the event, that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the other vehicle is to be carried out when the vehicle speed of the other vehicle is less than the speed of the vehicle and the overtaking maneuver is not carried out when the other vehicle speed is greater than or equal to the vehicle speed and thus overtaking would not be possible safely. see at least [¶083, 086 & 099-101]).
Regarding Claim 15, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the driving assistance system is configured to: determine the distance and/or time until reaching the event based on surroundings data of a surroundings sensor system of the vehicle and/or digital map data of the navigation module and/or external information which is received from at least one external unit (Determining the distance (time would also be a factor in this determinization) until reaching the event based on surrounding data form surrounding sensors on the vehicle, map data and external information received from other sources. see at least [¶027-028, 080-087 & 099]);
and/or determine the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle based on surroundings data of a surroundings sensor system of the vehicle and/or external information which is received from at least one external unit (Determine the vehicle properties based on surrounding data from a surrounding sensor system of the vehicle or external information received from external sources. see at least [¶083-084]).
Regarding Claim 16, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the assistance module is configured to further decide based on at least one item of vehicle-internal information whether or not the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out, and the at least one item of vehicle-internal information comprises one or more of: an acceleration capacity of the vehicle; a speed limit; an internal speed specification, an internal acceleration specification, or an internal deceleration specification (Deciding based on an internal vehicle information whether or not to perform the overtaking maneuver for overtaking another vehicle. The internal vehicle information can include the own vehicle acceleration capability. see at least [¶099-0101]).
Regarding Claim 20, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches wherein the assistance module is configured to: carry out the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle in an automated manner when it is decided that the overtaking maneuver is to be carried out, wherein the overtaking maneuver comprises a first lane change from the first lane to a second lane of the multilane route section of the travel route and a second lane change back from the second lane to the first lane; and/or actuate at least one output device to output at least one driver notification with respect to the decision on the overtaking maneuver (The overtaking maneuver for overtaking the other vehicle can be done in an automated manner. The overtaking maneuver comprises a vehicle changing from a first lane to a second lane for overtaking and returning to the first lane after overtaking the other vehicle. see at least [¶014, 081-090, 099 & FIG 8]).
Regarding Claim 21, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore Gillet teaches A vehicle comprising the driving assistance system according to claim 11 (A vehicle has the driving assistance system according to the rejected claim 11 above. see at least [¶014 & 064]).
Regarding Claim 22, Gillet teaches A driving assistance method for a vehicle, comprising (see at least [¶01-02, 05-06 & 049-051]):
wherein the vehicle is located on a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route, wherein the travel route comprises an event (The vehicle is located in a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route/path. The travel route/path can have an event such as a rection in lanes. The path of the vehicle is decided by the navigation system of the vehicle and augmented with map and sensor information. see at least [¶042, 070, 075, 081-082, FIG 2A & FIG 8]),
determining at least one vehicle property of at least one other vehicle which is located in front of the vehicle on the first lane (Determining a vehicle property of another vehicle located in the front of the vehicle on the first lane. see at least [¶023, 027-030, 083 & 086]);
and deciding, based on a distance and/or time until reaching the event and the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle, whether or not an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out (Deciding based on the distance (time would also be a factor in this determinization) until reaching the event and the vehicle property of the other vehicle, that an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the other vehicle should be carried out or not. see at least [¶030, 086-090 & 099-0101]).
Gillet does not explicitly teach providing a travel route for the vehicle.
Shall be noted that Gillet teaches to autonomously navigate a vehicle and decide that on overtaking maneuver should be performed on a path to a destination (indicating that a travel route/path should be provided to the vehicle). (see at least “[¶070] The system is configured to autonomously drive the vehicle. The system needs to ensure that the vehicle can navigate with a minimum intervention from driver. For this reason the automated driving should be such that stressful or frightening driving situations are avoided as far as possible. Therefore it is required in some case to prohibit automatic overtaking to mitigate risk, in case the determined road profile is not appropriate for a safe overtaking.” … “[¶082] In step S20 the distance available for the overtaking is determined as a function of at least one of an available distance until a detected lane merging area on the scheduled path (step S18), and an available distance until a detected exit lane on the scheduled path (step S19) (in case a navigation destination is set).”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Breed.
Taniguchi does teach providing a travel route for the vehicle (A navigation device that provides a travel route for the vehicle. see at least [¶024 & 033]);
Taniguchi would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking assist for a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet to use the technique of providing a travel route for the vehicle as taught by Taniguchi. Doing so would lead to improved determination that an overtaking maneuver should be performed on the travel route of the vehicle (see at least [¶0240]).
Regarding Claim 24, Gillet teaches A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed on one or more processors, carries out the acts of (see at least [¶01-02, 05-06 & 049-051]):
wherein the vehicle is located on a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route, wherein the travel route comprises an event (The vehicle is located in a first lane of a multilane route section of the travel route/path. The travel route/path can have an event such as a rection in lanes. The path of the vehicle is decided by the navigation system of the vehicle and augmented with map and sensor information. see at least [¶042, 070, 075, 081-082, FIG 2A & FIG 8]),
determining at least one vehicle property of at least one other vehicle which is located in front of the vehicle on the first lane (Determining a vehicle property of another vehicle located in the front of the vehicle on the first lane. see at least [¶023, 027-030, 083 & 086]);
and deciding, based on a distance and/or time until reaching the event and the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle, whether or not an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out (Deciding based on the distance (time would also be a factor in this determinization) until reaching the event and the vehicle property of the other vehicle, that an overtaking maneuver for overtaking the other vehicle should be carried out or not. see at least [¶030, 086-090 & 099-0101]).
Gillet does not explicitly teach providing a travel route for the vehicle.
Shall be noted that Gillet teaches to autonomously navigate a vehicle and decide that on overtaking maneuver should be performed on a path to a destination (indicating that a travel route/path should be provided to the vehicle). (see at least “[¶070] The system is configured to autonomously drive the vehicle. The system needs to ensure that the vehicle can navigate with a minimum intervention from driver. For this reason the automated driving should be such that stressful or frightening driving situations are avoided as far as possible. Therefore it is required in some case to prohibit automatic overtaking to mitigate risk, in case the determined road profile is not appropriate for a safe overtaking.” … “[¶082] In step S20 the distance available for the overtaking is determined as a function of at least one of an available distance until a detected lane merging area on the scheduled path (step S18), and an available distance until a detected exit lane on the scheduled path (step S19) (in case a navigation destination is set).”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Breed.
Taniguchi does teach providing a travel route for the vehicle (A navigation device that provides a travel route for the vehicle. see at least [¶024 & 033]);
Taniguchi would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking assist for a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet to use the technique of providing a travel route for the vehicle as taught by Taniguchi. Doing so would lead to improved determination that an overtaking maneuver should be performed on the travel route of the vehicle (see at least [¶0240]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet WO2019166084A1 (English Translation) in view of Taniguchi (US 20220203992 A1) in view of Kolanko EP2654027A1 (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 17, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, Gillet and Taniguchi do not explicitly teach wherein the internal speed specification is a driver speed specification; and/or the internal acceleration specification is a driver acceleration specification; and/or the internal deceleration specification is a driver deceleration specification.
However, Kolanko does teach wherein the internal speed specification is a driver speed specification; and/or the internal acceleration specification is a driver acceleration specification; and/or the internal deceleration specification is a driver deceleration specification (The internal speed information can include driving preferences/style of driving speed, acceleration and braking/deceleration. see at least [¶025 & 064-067]).
Kolanko would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking maneuvers for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet and Taniguchi to use the technique of having the internal speed specification is a driver speed specification; and/or the internal acceleration specification is a driver acceleration specification; and/or the internal deceleration specification is a driver deceleration specification as taught by Kolanko. Doing so would lead to improved warning for allowing or permitting an overtaking maneuver (see at least [¶070-071]).
Regarding Claim 18, Gillet and Taniguchi teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, Gillet and Taniguchi do not explicitly teach wherein the assistance module is configured to further decide based on a speed specification for the event whether or not the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out.
However, Kolanko does teach wherein the assistance module is configured to further decide based on a speed specification for the event whether or not the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out (Decide that an overtaking maneuver for overtaking another vehicle must be carried out based on the speed specification/limit for an event in the road/lane. see at least [¶022 & 064-067]).
Kolanko would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking maneuvers for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet and Taniguchi to use the technique of having the assistance module is configured to further decide based on a speed specification for the event whether or not the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out as taught by Kolanko. Doing so would lead to improved warning for allowing or permitting an overtaking maneuver (see at least [¶070-071]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet WO2019166084A1 (English Translation) in view of Taniguchi (US 20220203992 A1) in view of Kolanko EP2654027A1 (English Translation) in view of Matei (US 20170101102 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Gillet, Taniguchi and Kolanko teach all of the limitations of claim 18 as shown above, Gillet, Taniguchi and Kolanko do not explicitly teach wherein the assistance module is configured to decide, in consideration of the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle and the distance and/or the time until reaching the event, that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is achievable by the time until reaching the event and to decide that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is not to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is not achievable by the time until reaching the event.
However, Matei does teach wherein the assistance module is configured to decide, in consideration of the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle and the distance and/or the time until reaching the event, that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is achievable by the time until reaching the event and to decide that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is not to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is not achievable by the time until reaching the event (Decide, in consideration of a vehicle property of another vehicle and the distance/time to reaching an event, that an overtaking maneuver to overtake another vehicle is to be carried out when the speed specification/limit for the event is achievable by the time the event is reached and if not the overtaking maneuver is not carried out. The event here is the presence of an approaching vehicle however it would be obvious to have the event be a reduction of lanes, cornering or exit as seen in the cited arts of Gillet and Kolanko. see at least [¶02, 012, 024-028, 048, 075-081 & 096-099]).
Matei would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of overtaking maneuvers for a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Gillet, Taniguchi and Kolanko to use the technique of having the assistance module be configured to decide, in consideration of the at least one vehicle property of the at least one other vehicle and the distance and/or the time until reaching the event, that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is achievable by the time until reaching the event and to decide that the overtaking maneuver for overtaking the at least one other vehicle is not to be carried out when the speed specification for the event is not achievable by the time until reaching the event as taught by Matei. Doing so would lead to improved safety when overtaking a vehicle (see at least [¶08-011 & 024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lane Change Monitoring Method And Lane Change Monitoring System For Autonomous Vehicle (US 20220126871 A1)
METHOD AND CONTROL UNIT FOR A SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING A MOTOR VEHICLE (US 20200269843 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights