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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10-13-2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments received 10-13-2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 15 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final on an RCE.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08-21-2025 and 08-22-2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US 20130261949 A1) in view of Akiyama (US 20140236428 A1), in further view of Konstantinovich (US 20210129866 A1), and in further view of Bushnell (US 20120209457 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Eriksson discloses, obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]); wherein the analytics data comprises: vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018] involve using on-board sensors of active or passive); vehicle speed (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle specifications (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle maneuver capabilities (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object shape (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object dimensions (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object image data (Eriksson: [0018] Other CD&R methods involve using on-board sensors of active or passive type such as for example radar or electro/optical (EO) sensors); object type (Eriksson: [0077] Additionally the provided reference trajectory may be adapted to properties such as for example type of vehicle; [0122] In one example the size of the protected volume for each of the participating vehicles is predetermined based on one or more of the following metrics: vehicle performance, communication performance and minimum required separation distance, type of the vehicle); object velocity (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); and object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS] wherein each storage module comprises information related to a reference trajectory for each of the plurality of vehicles, a deviation detection module arranged to detect a deviation from said reference trajectory and generate at least one deviation alert, a communication module arranged to communicate the at least one deviation alert to each of the plurality of vehicles in response to the detected deviation, a separation module arranged to calculate an update of the reference trajectory for at least one of the plurality of vehicles, based on the reference trajectory of each of the plurality of vehicles, in order to provide distance separation between the plurality of vehicles); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0060-0061]), a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [0060-0061]); determining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]), over a communications network (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]) and in real-time (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0062]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akiyama discloses, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change or fuel consumption (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Akiyama: [0032]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]), for the benefit of stopping excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include minimal maneuvers taught by Akiyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to stop excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama disclose outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information, over a communications network and in real-time, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama do not explicitly disclose and while minimizing fuel consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165] In other words, the processor 110 causes the vehicle 220 to perform the most jerk-efficient in-lane transition from the initial state to the first candidate target state, by the target moment in time t.sub.T, based on the determined energy efficiency scores 714 and 724. By so doing, the processor 110 causes the vehicle 220 to perform the lane change such that the vehicle 220, during the in-lane movement, would drive along the most fuel-efficient transition from the initial state; and during the transverse movement, would finish the lane change safely avoiding a collision with the obstacle 302; [0168]; [0206]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama and Konstantinovich do not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Bushnell also discloses, the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, generating a data structure identifying a plurality of vehicle-object pairs for vehicles and objects connected to or detected by the centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0016-0019]; [0062]); and detecting collision events within each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs identified in the data structure (Eriksson: [0060-0062]); determining respective trajectory adjustments for respective vehicles in each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting the respective trajectory adjustments causing the respective vehicles to modify trajectories (Eriksson: [0016]; [0019]).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the trajectory adjustment information comprises at least one of: a change in vehicle speed; a change in vehicle travel direction; guidance vectors; navigation data; and vehicle propulsion control instructions (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Eriksson discloses, obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]); wherein the analytics data comprises: vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018] involve using on-board sensors of active or passive); vehicle speed (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle specifications (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle maneuver capabilities (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object shape (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object dimensions (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object image data (Eriksson: [0018] Other CD&R methods involve using on-board sensors of active or passive type such as for example radar or electro/optical (EO) sensors); object type (Eriksson: [0077] Additionally the provided reference trajectory may be adapted to properties such as for example type of vehicle; [0122] In one example the size of the protected volume for each of the participating vehicles is predetermined based on one or more of the following metrics: vehicle performance, communication performance and minimum required separation distance, type of the vehicle); object velocity (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); and object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS] wherein each storage module comprises information related to a reference trajectory for each of the plurality of vehicles, a deviation detection module arranged to detect a deviation from said reference trajectory and generate at least one deviation alert, a communication module arranged to communicate the at least one deviation alert to each of the plurality of vehicles in response to the detected deviation, a separation module arranged to calculate an update of the reference trajectory for at least one of the plurality of vehicles, based on the reference trajectory of each of the plurality of vehicles, in order to provide distance separation between the plurality of vehicles); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [0060]); trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information, over a communications network and in real-time (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akiyama discloses, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change or fuel consumption (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Akiyama: [0032]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]), for the benefit of stopping excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include minimal maneuvers taught by Akiyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to stop excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama disclose outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information, over a communications network and in real-time, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama do not explicitly disclose and while minimizing fuel consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165]; [0168]; [0206]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama and Konstantinovich do not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Bushnell also discloses, the operations further comprise selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, generating a data structure identifying a plurality of vehicle-object pairs for vehicles and objects connected to or detected by the centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0016-0019]; [0062]); and detecting collision events within each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs identified in the data structure (Eriksson: [0060-0062]); determining respective trajectory adjustments for respective vehicles in each of the plurality of vehicle-object pairs (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]); and outputting the respective trajectory adjustments cause the respective vehicles to modify trajectories (Eriksson: [0016]; [0019]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 9, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the trajectory adjustment information comprises at least one of a change in vehicle speed; a change in vehicle travel direction; guidance vectors; navigation data; and vehicle propulsion control instructions (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Eriksson discloses, a processor, a computer readable memory, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Eriksson: [0057-0058]) associated with a computing device of a ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, and program instructions executable by the computing device (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061) to cause the computing device to perform operations comprising: obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected (Eriksson: [0060]; [ABS]; [FIG. 1]; [FIG. 2]); wherein the analytics data comprises: vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018] involve using on-board sensors of active or passive); vehicle speed (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle specifications (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); vehicle maneuver capabilities (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object shape (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object dimensions (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties); object image data (Eriksson: [0018] Other CD&R methods involve using on-board sensors of active or passive type such as for example radar or electro/optical (EO) sensors); object type (Eriksson: [0077] Additionally the provided reference trajectory may be adapted to properties such as for example type of vehicle; [0122] In one example the size of the protected volume for each of the participating vehicles is predetermined based on one or more of the following metrics: vehicle performance, communication performance and minimum required separation distance, type of the vehicle); object velocity (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); object acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); and object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS] wherein each storage module comprises information related to a reference trajectory for each of the plurality of vehicles, a deviation detection module arranged to detect a deviation from said reference trajectory and generate at least one deviation alert, a communication module arranged to communicate the at least one deviation alert to each of the plurality of vehicles in response to the detected deviation, a separation module arranged to calculate an update of the reference trajectory for at least one of the plurality of vehicles, based on the reference trajectory of each of the plurality of vehicles, in order to provide distance separation between the plurality of vehicles); detecting, based on the analytics data by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system (Eriksson: [0019]; [0061]), a collision event within a vehicle-object pair (Eriksson: [0060]), determining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, trajectory adjustment information for a vehicle in the vehicle-object pair involved in the collision event; and outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information, over a communications network and in real-time (Eriksson: [ABS]; [0060-0061]).
Eriksson does not explicitly disclose, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption; and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Akiyama discloses, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change or fuel consumption (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]); and selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value (Akiyama: [0032]), wherein the time use condition value is based on a maximum tolerance threshold change in velocity for the vehicle or a maximum tolerance change in trajectory path or angle (Akiyama: [0038]; [0047-0048]), for the benefit of stopping excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include minimal maneuvers taught by Akiyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to stop excessive steering so that a strange or uncomfortable feeling of a driver can be eliminated.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama disclose outputting, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, the trajectory adjustment information, over a communications network and in real-time, to cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama do not explicitly disclose and while minimizing fuel consumption.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Konstantinovich discloses, cause the vehicle to modify its trajectory to assist in preventing the collision event of the vehicle while minimizing trajectory direction change and fuel consumption (Konstantinovich: [0165]; [0168]; [0206]), for the benefit of executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Eriksson to include efficiency scores and fuel efficient transitions to avoid a collision taught by Konstantinovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to executing most jerk-efficient and fuel efficient maneuvering and avoiding a collision.
Eriksson in view of Akiyama and Konstantinovich do not explicitly disclose, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value, wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bushnell discloses, wherein the collision event that is detected comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value (Bushnell: [0045]; [0053-0058]; [0063]; [0100-0101]; Also see at least [0107-0110], [FIG. 3 and 4], and [FIG. 18(1800-1806)]), wherein the zero-effort miss value is a value that indicates a minimum relative position vector that occurs as an object of the vehicle-object pair passes the vehicle with an assumption that the object and the vehicle do not experience any further acceleration other than that which is due to gravity (Bushnell: [0277-0281]; [0318]), for the benefit of substantially maintaining the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include closest point of approach (CPA) and zero miss taught by Bushnell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to substantially maintain the desired level of separation between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, determining the collision event comprises calculating a zero-effort miss value and a time value to the zero-effort miss value; and determining that the zero-effort miss value or the time value do not satisfy a safety threshold (Bushnell: [FIG. 18(1808)]; see paragraphs cited above (claim 1)).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Bushnell also discloses, selecting a trajectory adjustment approach based on a time use condition value, wherein the determining the trajectory adjustments are based on the selected trajectory adjustment approach (Bushnell: [0067]; [0070]).
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the vehicles in the vehicle-object pair are traveling in a same direction (Eriksson: [0060]).
REGARDING CLAIM 21, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 1, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the analytics data further comprises a field of view of one or more of the plurality of vehicles in relation to a propulsion system of the one or more of the plurality of vehicles (Eriksson: [0084]; [0142]).
REGARDING CLAIM 22, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 17, and further, Eriksson also discloses, the analytics data further comprises a field of view of one or more of the plurality of vehicles in relation to a propulsion system of the one or more of the plurality of vehicles (Eriksson: [0084]; [0142]).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksson (US 20130261949 A1) in view of Akiyama (US 20140236428 A1), and in further view of Konstantinovich (US 20210129866 A1) and Bushnell (US 20120209457 A1) as applied above to claims 5 and 13, and further in view of Bogovich (US 8606512 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Eriksson as modified remains as applied above to claim 5, and further, Eriksson as modified do not explicitly disclose, storing information regarding the detected collision events in a collision event report, wherein the detecting the collision events is based on the collision event report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bogovich discloses, “(Col. 7, Ln. 47-49); (Col. 8, Ln. 19-37)”, for the benefit of creating analytical and predictive models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method, system, and computer program disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include storing collision reports taught by Bogovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to creating analytical and predictive models.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Eriksson as modified remain as applied above to claim 13, and further, Eriksson as modified do not explicitly disclose the operations further comprise storing information regarding the detected collision events in a collision event report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bogovich discloses, “(Col. 7, Ln. 47-49); (Col. 8, Ln. 19-37)”, for the benefit of creating analytical and predictive models.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method, system, and computer program disclosed by a modified Eriksson to include storing collision reports taught by Bogovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to creating analytical and predictive models.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-13-2025, beginning on page 9, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that the prior art of record fails to disclose (Applicant submits that the combination of Eriksson, Akiyama, Konstantinovich, and Bushnell does not teach or suggest at least the features of "obtaining, by the ground-based centralized coordinated vehicle guidance system, analytics data for a plurality of vehicles or objects centrally communicating with or detected, wherein the analytics data comprises vehicle sensor readings; vehicle speed; vehicle acceleration; vehicle specifications; vehicle maneuver capabilities; object shape; object dimensions; object image data; object type; object velocity; object acceleration; and object travel path," as recited in claims 1, 9, and 17):
the analytics data comprises: vehicle sensor readings (Eriksson: [0018] involve using on-board sensors of active or passive);
vehicle speed (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle);
vehicle acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle);
vehicle specifications (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle);
vehicle maneuver capabilities (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle);
object shape (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties);
object dimensions (Eriksson: [0077] aerodynamic properties);
object image data (Eriksson: [0018] Other CD&R methods involve using on-board sensors of active or passive type such as for example radar or electro/optical (EO) sensors);
object type (Eriksson: [0077] Additionally the provided reference trajectory may be adapted to properties such as for example type of vehicle; [0122] In one example the size of the protected volume for each of the participating vehicles is predetermined based on one or more of the following metrics: vehicle performance, communication performance and minimum required separation distance, type of the vehicle);
object velocity (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle);
object acceleration (Eriksson: [0010] Path planning may also take into consideration maneuverability of each vehicle. The maneuverability may for example relate to maximum speed, acceleration and maximum turn rate of each respective vehicle); and
object travel path (Eriksson: [ABS] wherein each storage module comprises information related to a reference trajectory for each of the plurality of vehicles, a deviation detection module arranged to detect a deviation from said reference trajectory and generate at least one deviation alert, a communication module arranged to communicate the at least one deviation alert to each of the plurality of vehicles in response to the detected deviation, a separation module arranged to calculate an update of the reference trajectory for at least one of the plurality of vehicles, based on the reference trajectory of each of the plurality of vehicles, in order to provide distance separation between the plurality of vehicles)
Because the prior art of record discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663