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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on June 4, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 3-5, and 22-23 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11237562) in view of Fairgrieve, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9387857) and in further view of Kobayashi (U.S. Patent No. 6313758) and further in view of Limpibunterng, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8688327) and further in view of Kuge, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7349767) and further in view of Anderson, et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20190381998).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz, et al. teaches: A leading vehicle comprising (Fig. 1, Col. 4, lines 33-35: “…exemplary vehicles operating at a job site [leading vehicle]”
at least one processor, and (Fig. 2, Col. 7, lines 47-53: “include any combination of processing modules [processor]”)
at least one memory storing at least one program, when executed, causing the at least one processor to: (Fig. 2, Col. 13, lines 35-42: “…one or more memory devices [memory].” […] “…hardware and software associated with the one or more processors and one or more memory devices [storing program to be executed]”)
cause a communicator to establish communication with one or more different vehicles, (autonomous vehicle command control module (240), Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 15-21: “…communication of real time data indicative of the location, speed, and heading of manned vehicle (140) to autonomous vehicle (142) [communication between different vehicles]”)
the one or more different vehicles driving ahead in a travel road; (Col. 6, lines 21-30: “…manned vehicle (140) […] “…follow predetermined path (142) in a known manner, and autonomous vehicle (120) is made aware of the path (142) being traveled by manned vehicle (140) [vehicles following path]”)
determine whether there is an abnormality on a road surface of the travel road based on (Fig. 2, Col. 7, lines 3-11: “…road surface conditions that may contribute to slip conditions and affect the behavior [determination of abnormality]”).
Schultz, et al. does not teach the concept of a following vehicle that follows the leading vehicle driving ahead in a travel road, e.g., the arrangement of vehicles following each other in the same direction.
In a similar field of endeavor (development of cruise control for a vehicle whereby a following vehicle can travel at a set speed and maintain a pre-determined distance from a leading vehicle), Fairgrieve, et al. teaches: a following vehicle that follows the leading vehicle driving ahead in a travel road (Abstract: “…following vehicle can be caused to travel at a target speed, subject to maintaining a pre-determined distance from a leading vehicle in substantially straight travel [comprising following vehicle that follows leading vehicle on road]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schultz, et al. to include the teaching of Fairgrieve, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of vehicle cruise control in which a following vehicle can travel at a set speed and maintain a preset distance from a leading vehicle in straight travel (Fairgrieve, et al. Col. 2, lines 13-28).
The combination of Schultz, et al. and Fairgrieve, et al. does not teach obtaining map information indicating a map from a navigation device for the leading vehicle, the navigation device including a display screen configured to display the map information; based on the map information; in response to determining that there is the abnormality, execute a prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality; and send an instruction to avoid the abnormality to the following vehicle via the communicator when it is predicted that the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality.
In a similar field of endeavor (automatic following travel system), Kobayashi teaches: obtaining map information indicating a map from a navigation device for the leading vehicle, the navigation device including a display screen configured to display the map information; (Col. 4, lines 21-27: "…GPS/DGPS positioning device (16) [navigating device for leading vehicle] allows a center for central administration of the electric vehicles (1) to confirm the location of the procession within the traveling area, and allows a display device (25) [display screen] of a navigation device with an audio guidance speaker (25a) to indicate the location of an object vehicle [current position of leading vehicle] on a map [display map information].")
based on the map information (Col. 4, lines 21-27: "…GPS/DGPS positioning device (16) allows a center for central administration of the electric vehicles (1) to confirm the location of the procession within the traveling area, and allows a display device (25) of a navigation device with an audio guidance speaker (25a) to indicate the location of an object vehicle [current position of leading vehicle] on a map [map information indicating a map].")
in response to determining that there is the abnormality, execute a prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality, (Fig. 5, Steps (S11) - (S19), Col. 8, line 62 to Col. 9, lines 1-5: "…the abnormality signal transmitter (42) transmits the vehicle abnormality information and the vehicle location information via the vehicle-to-vehicle radio communicator (30) and so on to the other vehicles in the procession. The vehicle abnormality information includes deceleration slippage, acceleration slippage, side slippage, abnormal distance detected by radar, or the like [vehicle data used to predict abnormality determination for following vehicles in series of steps]." ; Fig. 8, Col. 6, lines 54-67: "…object vehicle [specified vehicle]”, […] value detected by the acceleration sensor (22) exceeds this threshold value for a predetermined period of time, it is judged that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle, for example, slippage has occurred between the ground and the wheels [prediction on whether wheels of vehicle has passed abnormality on surface of travel road].")
and send an instruction to avoid the abnormality to the following vehicle via the communicator when it is predicted that the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality (Fig. 5, Step (S18) - (S19), Col. 9, lines 26-42: "…it is determined whether the object vehicle is in front of or behind the vehicle which has transmitted the abnormality signal (step 18) [following vehicle - communicating status]." ; Col. 9, lines 43-47: "…transmitted the abnormality signal, the object vehicle decelerates and stops. After the vehicle has stopped, the vehicle stop control is activated to stop the output from the motor (4), and to engage the brake actuator (27) (step 19) [following vehicle avoids abnormality].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al. and Fairgrieve, et al. to include the teaching of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of a processional travel control apparatus which can take emergency measures to respond to an abnormality in the succeeding vehicle (Kobayashi Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2, lines 1-22).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., and Kobayashi does not teach obtaining and a radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle, determining a first steering angle, based on the radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle, the first steering angle being a reference steering angle while the leading vehicle is driving on the travel road; obtaining a second steering angle detected with a steering angle sensor, the second steering angle being the actual steering angle of the leading vehicle while the leading vehicle is driving on the travel road; determined whether the second steering angle falls outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles; in response to the second steering angle falling outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles, determining there is the abnormality on a road surface of the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving system support), Limpibunterng et al. teaches: obtaining a radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle, (Col. 13, lines 1-6: "the ECU (100) calculates various road surface information required when the vehicle (10) is made follow the target driving route (step S106). In the step (S106), a curvature R of the target driving route (i.e. inverse of a radius), a lateral deviation Y between the white line and the vehicle (10) [radius of curvature of road surface at current position of leading vehicle]")
determining a first steering angle, based on the radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle, the first steering angle being a reference steering angle while the leading vehicle is driving on the travel road; (Col. 13, lines 1-6: "the ECU (100) calculates various road surface information required when the vehicle (10) is made follow the target driving route (step S106). In the step (S106), a curvature R of the target driving route (i.e. inverse of a radius), a lateral deviation Y between the white line and the vehicle (10) [radius of curvature of road surface at current position of leading vehicle]" ; Col. 17, lines 35-41: "…the ECU (100) calculates a reference steering-wheel angle during LKA .theta.MAref in accordance with the following equation (5) on the basis of the LKA correction target angle .theta.LK and the VGRS final target angle .theta.TGF (step S404). Incidentally, the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA .theta.MAref is one example of the "reference steering angle" of the present invention [first steering angle - reference steering angle].")
obtaining a second steering angle detected with a steering angle sensor, the second steering angle being the actual steering angle of the leading vehicle while the leading vehicle is driving on the travel road; (Col. 11, lines 57-62: "The steering angle sensor (17) is an angle sensor capable of detecting the steering angle MA which indicates the amount of rotation of the upper steering shaft (12). The steering angle sensor (17) is electrically connected to the ECU (100), and the detected steering angle MA is referred to by the ECU (100) with a constant or irregular period [steering angle detected with steering angle sensor of vehicle].")
determined whether the second steering angle falls outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles; (Col. 17, lines 44-51: "…after the calculation of the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref, the absolute value of the deviation between the steering angle MA and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref is compared with the absolute value of the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref in a step (S405) (step S405) [steering angle is compared to predetermined range of steering angle values]." ; Col. 17, lines 60-64: "If the deviation between the steering angle MA and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref is greater than the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref (the step (S405): YES), the ECU (100) performs the overriding judgment and sets the overriding flag to ON (step (S406)) [result of judgment process - determining whether second steering angle falls outside range of steering angles].")
in response to the second steering angle falling outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles, determining there is the abnormality on a road surface of the travel road (Col. 18, lines 8-14: "According to the overriding judgment control described above, in performing the LKA driving, if the driving route is changed by the driver's will and if the steering operation is requested in order to avoid an obstacle on the road, the lane keeping driving can be stopped in proper timing, and more faithful driving for the steering operation based on the driver's will can be performed [response to process whether second steering angle falls outside range of steering angles; can identify abnormality (obstacle) on road].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., and Kobayashi to include the teaching of Limpibunterng et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the control of the steering angle of a vehicle with respect to following a designated route and navigating obstacles (Limpibunterng et al. Col. 3, lines 27-42, Col. 4, lines 29-37).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, and Limpibunterng et al. does not teach deriving a predetermined range of steering angles by setting a reference distribution in which the first steering angle is used as an average, the reference distribution being set based on a predetermined variance associated with a standard deviation, the predetermined range of steering angles being a reference steering angle range for traveling along the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (driver estimation and operation assistance), Kuge, et al. teaches:
deriving a predetermined range of steering angles by setting a reference distribution in which the first steering angle is used as an average, the reference distribution being set based on a predetermined variance associated with a standard deviation, the predetermined range of steering angles being a reference steering angle range for traveling along the travel road (Col. 7, lines 56-65: "…imaginary driver's steering angle θid against a normal distribution [derived based on a normal distribution], where the mean (e) is the real driver's steering angle θrd [first steering angle is used as the average] and the variance (a) is a predetermined value prd [variance is a predetermined value] such as a standard deviation of steering angles [standard deviation]. […] ρrd may range from -15 degrees to +15 degrees, such as between 3 to 5 degrees [range of steering angles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, and Limpibunterng et al. to include the teaching of Kuge, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the prediction of a driver operation with respect to hypothetical surrounding drivers on a road (Kuge, et al. Col. 1, lines 53-67).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, Limpibunterng et al., and Kuge, et al. does not teach by determining a number of wheels of the leading vehicle that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (active safety suspension systems for vehicles), Anderson, et al. teaches: by determining a number of wheels of the leading vehicle that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road (Paragraph [0074]: "In some embodiments a method comprises operating a vehicle is configured with at least two wheels; using at least one sensor to detect loss of traction in a first wheel [wheels passed abnormality on travel road], using an active suspension system to increase the wheel force of the first wheel from a first level to a second higher level over a desired period of time.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, Limpibunterng et al., and Kuge, et al. to include the teaching of Anderson, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve a vehicle’s suspension force and position and increase the safety and drivability of a vehicle (Anderson, et al. Paragraphs [0009], [0021] – [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein, the at least one processor is configured to, upon predicting that the following vehicle is not able to avoid the abnormality, send an instruction to decelerate to the following vehicle ("…autonomous vehicle command control module (240) may be configured to lower a speed of autonomous vehicle (140) if the comparison module identifies any potential contact between autonomous vehicle (120) and manned vehicle (140) [processor - predicts cannot avoid abnormality - send instruction to decelerate following vehicle].").
Regarding claim 4, Schultz, et al. teaches: A leading vehicle comprising circuitry configured to: (Col. 7, lines 18-30: “…generate signals indicative of [circuitry] […] sensing system may also be configured to generate signals [circuitry]”)
cause a communicator to establish communication with one or more different vehicles, (autonomous vehicle command control module (240), Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines 15-21: “…communication of real time data indicative of the location, speed, and heading of manned vehicle (140) to autonomous vehicle (142) [communication between different vehicles]”)
the one or more different vehicles driving ahead in a travel road; (Col. 6, lines 21-30: "…manned vehicle (140) is assumed to be controlled by an operator to follow predetermined path (142) in a known manner, and autonomous vehicle (120) is made aware of the path (142) being traveled by manned vehicle (140), as well as the projected positions of manned vehicle (140) along path (142) [vehicles following path]")
determine whether there is an abnormality on a road surface of the travel road, based on (Col. 7, lines 18-30: “…generate signals indicative of characteristics of autonomous vehicle (120) that may affect whether the vehicle slips at any particular point in time or position as it travels along travel path (122). […] indicative of weather characteristics at the time that may affect slippage of the vehicle, […] generate signals indicative of road surface conditions, such as those discussed above, leading to soft underfoot conditions, and other road surface conditions contributing to slippage of autonomous vehicle (120) [determination of abnormality]).
Schultz, et al. does not teach the concept of a following vehicle that follows the leading vehicle driving ahead in a travel road, e.g., the arrangement of vehicles following each other in the same direction.
In a similar field of endeavor (development of cruise control for a vehicle whereby a following vehicle can travel at a set speed and maintain a pre-determined distance from a leading vehicle), Fairgrieve, et al. teaches: a following vehicle that follows the leading vehicle driving ahead in a travel road (Abstract: "A method of cruise control whereby a following vehicle can be caused to travel at a target speed, subject to maintaining a pre-determined distance from a leading vehicle in substantially straight travel [comprising following vehicle that follows leading vehicle on road]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schultz, et al. to include the teaching of Fairgrieve, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of vehicle cruise control in which a following vehicle can travel at a set speed and maintain a preset distance from a leading vehicle in straight travel (Fairgrieve, et al. Col. 2, lines 13-28).
The combination of Schultz, et al. and Fairgrieve, et al. does not teach obtaining map information indicating a map from a navigation device for the leading vehicle, the navigation device including a display screen configured to display the map information; based on the map information; in response to determining that there is the abnormality, execute a prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality; and send an instruction to avoid the abnormality to the following vehicle via the communicator when it is predicted that the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality.
In a similar field of endeavor (automatic following travel system), Kobayashi teaches: obtaining map information indicating a map from a navigation device for the leading vehicle, the navigation device including a display screen configured to display the map information; (Col. 4, lines 21-27: "…GPS/DGPS positioning device (16) [navigating device for leading vehicle] allows a center for central administration of the electric vehicles (1) to confirm the location of the procession within the traveling area, and allows a display device (25) [display screen] of a navigation device with an audio guidance speaker (25a) to indicate the location of an object vehicle [current position of leading vehicle] on a map [display map information].")
based on the map information; (Col. 4, lines 21-27: "…GPS/DGPS positioning device (16) allows a center for central administration of the electric vehicles (1) to confirm the location of the procession within the traveling area, and allows a display device (25) of a navigation device with an audio guidance speaker (25a) to indicate the location of an object vehicle [current position of leading vehicle] on a map [map information indicating a map].")
in response to determining that there is the abnormality, execute a prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality; and send an instruction to avoid the abnormality, (Fig. 5, Steps (S11) - (S19), Col. 8, line 62 to Col. 9, lines 1-5: “…abnormality signal transmitter (42) transmits the vehicle abnormality information and the vehicle location information via the vehicle-to-vehicle radio communicator (30) and so on to the other vehicles in the procession. The vehicle abnormality information includes deceleration slippage, acceleration slippage, side slippage, abnormal distance detected by radar, or the like [vehicle data used to predict abnormality determination for following vehicles in series of steps].”; Fig. 8, Col. 6, lines 54-67: “…object vehicle [specified vehicle]” […] “…value detected by the acceleration sensor (22) exceeds this threshold value for a predetermined period of time, it is judged that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle, for example, slippage has occurred between the ground and the wheels [prediction on whether wheels of vehicle has passed abnormality on surface of travel road].")
and send an instruction to avoid the abnormality to the following vehicle via the communicator when it is predicted that the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality (Fig. 5, Step (S18) - (S19): Col. 9, lines 26-42: "…it is determined whether the object vehicle is in front of or behind the vehicle which has transmitted the abnormality signal (step 18) [following vehicle - communicating status]." ; Col. 9, lines 43-47: "…transmitted the abnormality signal, the object vehicle decelerates and stops. After the vehicle has stopped, the vehicle stop control is activated to stop the output from the motor (4), and to engage the brake actuator (27) (step 19) [following vehicle avoids abnormality].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al. and Fairgrieve, et al. to include the teaching of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the development of a processional travel control apparatus which can take emergency measures to respond to an abnormality in the succeeding vehicle (Kobayashi Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2, lines 1-22).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., and Kobayashi does not teach obtaining and a radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle, determining a first steering angle, based on the radius of curvature of the road surface, at the current position of the leading vehicle, the first steering angle being a reference steering angle while the leading vehicle driving on the travel road; obtaining a second steering angle detected with a steering angle sensor, the second steering angle being the actual steering angle of the leading vehicle while the leading vehicle driving in the travel road; and determining whether the second steering angle falls outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles; in response to the second steering angle falling outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles, determining there is the abnormality on a road surface of the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (driving system support), Limpibunterng et al. teaches: obtaining, a radius of curvature of the road surface at the current position of the leading vehicle (Col. 13, lines 1-6: "the ECU (100) calculates various road surface information required when the vehicle (10) is made follow the target driving route (step S106). In the step (S106), a curvature R of the target driving route (i.e. inverse of a radius), a lateral deviation Y between the white line and the vehicle (10) [radius of curvature of road surface at current position of leading vehicle]")
determining a first steering angle based on the radius of curvature of the road surface, at the current position of the leading vehicle, the first steering angle being a reference steering angle while the leading vehicle driving in the travel road; (Col. 13, lines 1-6: "the ECU (100) calculates various road surface information required when the vehicle (10) is made follow the target driving route (step S106). In the step (S106), a curvature R of the target driving route (i.e. inverse of a radius), a lateral deviation Y between the white line and the vehicle (10) [radius of curvature of road surface at current position of leading vehicle]" ; Col. 17, lines 35-41: "…the ECU (100) calculates a reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref in accordance with the following equation (5) on the basis of the LKA correction target angle .theta.LK and the VGRS final target angle.theta.TGF (step S404). Incidentally, the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref is one example of the "reference steering angle" of the present invention [first steering angle - reference steering angle].")
obtaining a second steering angle detected with a steering angle sensor, the second steering angle being the actual steering angle of the leading vehicle while the leading vehicle driving in the travel road; (Col. 11, lines 57-62: "The steering angle sensor (17) is an angle sensor capable of detecting the steering angle MA which indicates the amount of rotation of the upper steering shaft (12). The steering angle sensor (17) is electrically connected to the ECU (100), and the detected steering angle MA is referred to by the ECU (100) with a constant or irregular period [steering angle detected with steering angle sensor of vehicle].")
and determining whether the second steering angle falls outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles; (Col. 17, lines 44-51: "…after the calculation of the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref, the absolute value of the deviation between the steering angle MA and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA.theta.MAref is compared with the absolute value of the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref in a step (S405) (step S405) [steering angle is compared to predetermined range of steering angle values]." ; Col. 17, lines 60-64: "If the deviation between the steering angle MA and the reference steering-wheel angle during LKA .theta.MAref is greater than the angle threshold value for overriding delta.MAref (the step (S405): YES), the ECU (100) performs the overriding judgment and sets the overriding flag to ON (step (S406)) [result of judgment process - determining whether second steering angle falls outside range of steering angles].")
in response to the second steering angle falling outside the derived predetermined range of steering angles, determining there is the abnormality on a road surface of the travel road (Col. 18, lines 8-14: "According to the overriding judgment control described above, in performing the LKA driving, if the driving route is changed by the driver's will and if the steering operation is requested in order to avoid an obstacle on the road, the lane keeping driving can be stopped in proper timing, and more faithful driving for the steering operation based on the driver's will can be performed [response to process whether second steering angle falls outside range of steering angles; can identify abnormality (obstacle) on road].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., and Kobayashi to include the teaching of Limpibunterng et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the control of the steering angle of a vehicle with respect to following a designated route and navigating obstacles (Limpibunterng et al. Col. 3, lines 27-42, Col. 4, lines 29-37).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, and Limpibunterng et al. does not teach deriving a predetermined range of steering angles by setting a reference distribution in which the first steering angle is used as an average, the reference distribution being set based on a predetermined variance associated with a standard deviation, the predetermined range of steering angles being a reference steering angle range for traveling along the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (driver estimation and operation assistance), Kuge, et al. teaches: In a similar field of endeavor (driver estimation and operation assistance), Kuge, et al. teaches: deriving a predetermined range of steering angles by setting a reference distribution in which the first steering angle is used as an average, the reference distribution being set based on a predetermined variance associated with a standard deviation, the predetermined range of steering angles being a reference steering angle range for traveling along the travel road (Col. 7, lines 56-65: "…imaginary driver's steering angle θid against a normal distribution [derived based on a normal distribution], where the mean (e) is the real driver's steering angle θrd [first steering angle is used as the average] and the variance (a) is a predetermined value prd [variance is a predetermined value] such as a standard deviation of steering angles [standard deviation]. […] ρrd may range from -15 degrees to +15 degrees, such as between 3 to 5 degrees [range of steering angles].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, and Limpibunterng et al. to include the teaching of Kuge, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the prediction of a driver operation with respect to hypothetical surrounding drivers on a road.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, and Limpibunterng et al. to include the teaching of Kuge, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the prediction of a driver operation with respect to hypothetical surrounding drivers on a road (Kuge, et al. Col. 1, lines 53-67).
The combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, Limpibunterng et al., and Kuge, et al. does not teach by determining a number of wheels of the leading vehicle that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road.
In a similar field of endeavor (active safety suspension systems for vehicles), Anderson, et al. teaches: by determining a number of wheels of the leading vehicle that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road (Paragraph [0074]: "In some embodiments a method comprises operating a vehicle is configured with at least two wheels; using at least one sensor to detect loss of traction in a first wheel [wheels passed abnormality on travel road], using an active suspension system to increase the wheel force of the first wheel from a first level to a second higher level over a desired period of time.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, Limpibunterng et al., and Kuge, et al. to include the teaching of Anderson, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve a vehicle’s suspension force and position and increase the safety and drivability of a vehicle (Anderson, et al. Paragraphs [0009], [0021] – [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality includes: deriving a deviation of a wheel speed of each wheel of the leading vehicle at a current time with a wheel speed of the each wheel of the leading vehicle at a time prior to the current time; and identifying one or more wheels, wherein an amount of change of each of the identified one or more wheels in the deviation per unit time is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0035]: "…Data collected at a certain point in time may be compared, for example, to data collected at an earlier time, to data collected after repairs or component replacement, data factory-stored in a lookup-table, and/or to data collected when the vehicle was new. Data collected at one wheel may be compared to data collected at one or more other wheels. For example, the data collected at a back wheel may be compared to data collected at a front wheel on the same side of the vehicle after a time offset that is dependent on vehicle speed [identifying wheels in which amount of change of each of the identified one or more wheels in the deviation per unit time is greater than or equal to a predetermined value]."; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0069]: "…position and steering angle of one or more wheels such as, for example the first wheel that is projected to strike the rollover trip, the wheel force of one or more wheels, the position of the rollover trip relative to the vehicle and the projected time of collision of at least one wheel with the trip. […] properly timed angular acceleration in the vehicle body, which may be about the vehicle's longitudinal axis, opposite in direction to the anticipated rollover, just prior to the projected time of collision of one or more wheels […] timed such that the maximum angular momentum countering the anticipated rollover occurs, as nearly as possible, at the projected time of collision of at least one wheel [method - deriving a deviation of a wheel speed of each wheel of the leading vehicle at a current time with a wheel speed of the each wheel of the leading vehicle at a time prior to the current time]").
Regarding claim 12, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 4, wherein the prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality includes: deriving a deviation of a wheel speed of each wheel of the leading vehicle at a current time with a wheel speed of the each wheel of the leading vehicle at a time prior to the current time; and identifying one or more wheels, wherein an amount of change of each of the identified one or more wheels in the deviation per unit time is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0035]: "…Data collected at a certain point in time may be compared, for example, to data collected at an earlier time, to data collected after repairs or component replacement, data factory-stored in a lookup-table, and/or to data collected when the vehicle was new. Data collected at one wheel may be compared to data collected at one or more other wheels. For example, the data collected at a back wheel may be compared to data collected at a front wheel on the same side of the vehicle after a time offset that is dependent on vehicle speed [identifying wheels in which amount of change of each of the identified one or more wheels in the deviation per unit time is greater than or equal to a predetermined value]."; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0069]: "…position and steering angle of one or more wheels such as, for example the first wheel that is projected to strike the rollover trip, the wheel force of one or more wheels, the position of the rollover trip relative to the vehicle and the projected time of collision of at least one wheel with the trip. […] properly timed angular acceleration in the vehicle body, which may be about the vehicle's longitudinal axis, opposite in direction to the anticipated rollover, just prior to the projected time of collision of one or more wheels […] timed such that the maximum angular momentum countering the anticipated rollover occurs, as nearly as possible, at the projected time of collision of at least one wheel [method - deriving a deviation of a wheel speed of each wheel of the leading vehicle at a current time with a wheel speed of the each wheel of the leading vehicle at a time prior to the current time]").
Regarding claim 14, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 10, wherein the prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality further includes at least one of: determining whether a number of the one or more wheels that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road is equal to or less than two; determining whether a direction of the second steering angle received from the steering angle sensor is opposite a side of the identified one or more wheels; and determining whether there is a space for the following vehicle in the road surface to avoid the abnormality based on the direction of the second steering angle, a width of a lane on which there is the abnormality, a position of the leading vehicle in a widthwise direction of the lane, and a width of the leading vehicle (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0074]: "…operating a vehicle is configured with at least two wheels; using at least one sensor to detect loss of traction in a first wheel [wheels is equal to two; passed abnormality on travel road]"; Kobayashi Col. 9, lines 20-25: "When receiving the vehicle-to-vehicle abnormality signal from the other vehicles in the procession, it is determined whether the object vehicle is the leading vehicle or not (step 16) [specified vehicle is leading vehicle].").
Regarding claim 16, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 12, wherein the prediction of whether the following vehicle is able to avoid the abnormality further includes at least one of: determining whether a number of the one or more wheels that has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road is equal to or less than two; determining whether a direction of the second steering angle received from the steering angle sensor is opposite a side of the identified one or more wheels; and determining whether there is a space for the following vehicle in the road surface to avoid the abnormality based on the direction of the second steering angle, a width of a lane on which there is the abnormality, a position of the leading vehicle in a widthwise direction of the lane, and a width of the leading vehicle (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0074]: "…operating a vehicle is configured with at least two wheels; using at least one sensor to detect loss of traction in a first wheel [wheels is equal to two; passed abnormality on travel road]"; Kobayashi Col. 9, lines 20-25: "When receiving the vehicle-to-vehicle abnormality signal from the other vehicles in the procession, it is determined whether the object vehicle is the leading vehicle or not (step 16) [specified vehicle is leading vehicle].").
Regarding claim 22, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 1, further comprising the steering angle sensor and a wheel speed sensor provided for each wheel, wherein the execution of the prediction further comprises: (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0156]: "…a wheel speed sensor (712) [wheel speed sensor]; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0157]: "Each wheel [each wheel] (802)" ; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0082]: "…determining the elasto-kinematic state of at least a portion of the active suspension system and determining the effect of the elasto kinematic state of the at least a portion of the active suspension system on the steering behavior of the vehicle [each wheel of suspension system with respect to steering]." ; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0083]: "…road wheel steering angle [steering angle] [...]on a measurement obtained by using a sensor [sensor]")
predicting, based on a direction of the second steering angle detected with the steering angle sensor and wheel speeds of wheels detected with the wheel speed sensor, that the abnormality exists on one of a left region and a right region of the road surface with respect to the leading vehicle; (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0041]: "…a change in steering position, enacted by an active steering system that can add or subtract steering angle [generation of second steering angle]."; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0043]: "…kinematic model [model - consists of steering angle and wheel speed] of the vehicle and/or the suspension system […] predict the steering effects induced by differential vertical motion of one or both left side wheels [predict behavior in left region]"; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0162]: "…self-driving vehicle's sensors may detect an obstacle and a vehicle velocity that indicate that the vehicle is on a collision course with the obstacle [detecting abnormality]. […] adjust suspension dynamics [adjust settings according to abnormality]")
and deriving, based on the predicting, a distance between a side surface of the leading vehicle facing another of the left region and the right region and a distal end of the another of the left region and the right region, the instruction includes information on the distance (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0043]: "…a kinematic model [model - consists of steering angle and wheel speed] of the vehicle and/or the suspension system […] predict the steering effects induced by differential vertical motion of one or both left side wheels [predict behavior in left region]" ; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0069]: "…distance can be estimated either using stereo vision or monocular vision with distance interpolation [deriving distance based on prediction]").
Regarding claim 23, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 22, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein a distal end of the another of a left region and a right region is a lane line of the another of the left region and the right region of the road surface (Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0043]: "…kinematic model [model - consists of steering angle and wheel speed] of the vehicle and/or the suspension system […] predict the steering effects induced by differential vertical motion of one or both left side wheels [predict behavior in left region]" ; Anderson, et al. Paragraph [0057]: "…active suspension system of at least one wheel may be used to induce a predefined motion in or of the vehicle body which may be perceived visually or sensed and interpreted by the person. For example, a lane departure detection system may be used to determine that a vehicle is drifting out of the lane of travel [lane line region detection].").
Regarding claim 28, Schultz, et al., Fairgrieve, et al., Kobayashi, et al. Limpibunterng et al., Kuge, et al., and Anderson, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The leading vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the execution of the prediction comprising a plurality of steps includes: identifying whether one or more wheels of the leading vehicle has passed the abnormality on the road surface of the travel road, (Kobayashi Fig. 8, Col. 6, lines 54-67: "…value detected by the acceleration sensor (22) exceeds this threshold value for a predetermined period of time, it is judged that an abnormality has occurred in the vehicle, for example, slippage has occurred between the ground and the wheels [prediction on whether wheels of vehicle has passed abnormality on surface of travel road].")
wherein in response to determining that two or less wheels of the leading vehicle have passed the abnormality, the processor determines whether there is a space for the following vehicle to avoid the abnormality, (Kobayashi Col. 7, lines 35-41: "…abnormality stop device (44) includes a processional stop/continuing determining device (steps (15), (18), and (19) described later) for determining whether the object vehicle stops or continues traveling, by comparing the object vehicle number with the number of the vehicle which transmitted the abnormality signal [processor determines whether there is space for following vehicle to avoid