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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments on pages 8–10 of the Response, all grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 involving the term “arbitrary point”—including both for new matter and indefiniteness—are hereby withdrawn, responsive to the Applicant removing that term from the claims.
Claims 1–8 and 10–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0114590 A1 (“Matsunaga”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0233048 A1 (“Andersson”). The Applicant’s remarks (Response 10–13) have been considered, but are not persuasive.
According to the Applicant, Matsunaga does not teach expanding the danger range of the target in a specific direction simply because elsewhere in Matsunaga’s disclosure, Figs. 3A–3B show the target merely changing its position rather than expanding its area. (Response 11). This argument is not persuasive because Figs. 3A–3B are not the relied-upon teaching for this element in the rejection. Instead, the rejection points to Matsunaga’s teaching of adding ΔS3 to the existing object presence region EA2 of the other (i.e. target) vehicle: “the object presence region EA2 is calculated so that the area of the object presence region EA2 is increased as the object presence region EA2 is located farther from the current position toward a future position on the object estimated route PA2.” Matsunaga ¶ 90. This clearly discloses a case of increasing the object presence region of the target vehicle, rather than merely moving it as suggested by the Applicant.
Accordingly, since the prior art teaches each and every element of the claimed invention, and since there was a good reason to combine the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As such, the Applicant’s request for a notice of allowance (Response 14) is respectfully denied.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of calculating “the plurality of coordinates of the target,” among other things “a distance between the rear axle center and a rear bumper of the target, and cosine and sine function values based on an angle of a traveling direction of the target” in the application as filed.
The Applicant alleges that all amendments are supported in Fig. 7 and page 17, line 3 to page 22, line 6 (see Response 8) but that section of the Application only describes performing the above calculation for the driver’s own vehicle (i.e., “vehicle 1”), not the target vehicle (i.e. “vehicle 2”).
A person of ordinary skill in the art could not have reasonably concluded that the Applicant or inventors had possession of an invention that utilizes the distance between the rear axle center and a rear bumper of the target in such a calculation, because such a calculation would require the driver’s vehicle to somehow measure the distance of the rear axel center and rear bumper of the target vehicle. Such a measurement would necessitate specialized sensors and/or techniques, neither of which are set forth in this application using “words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.” MPEP § 2163.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 1–8 and 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0114590 A1 (“Matsunaga”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0233048 A1 (“Andersson”).
Claim 1
Matsunaga teaches:
A vehicle comprising:
As shown in FIG. 1, Matsunaga discloses a vehicle control system 100, which includes several components 10–32 that are mounted to a vehicle. See Matsunaga ¶¶ 22–24.
a non-transitory memory
Vehicle control system 100 includes a radar ECU 12 that has “a computer including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), [and] a RAM (Random Access Memory).” Matsunaga ¶ 25.
storing a
“The radar ECU 12 calculates a position of an object around the own vehicle and a relative speed of the object to the own vehicle on the basis of the reflected wave signal outputted from the millimeter wave radar sensor 11.” Matsunaga ¶ 25. Data describing a position of an object around the own vehicle, and data describing the reflected wave signal outputted from the millimeter wave radar sensor, all fall within the scope of a “map,” albeit not necessarily a “high-definition” map.
Furthermore, since the radar ECU 12 is a computer with a CPU and memory, and since computers, by definition, must access a stored representation of data in order to perform calculations on that data, Matsunaga’s ECU 12 necessarily stores the aforementioned map data in a place that is accessible to its CPU for computation. Matsunaga does not need to disclose whether the position data is stored in its ROM or RAM in order to teach this limitation (although it strongly suggests the same), because, at a minimum, the data must eventually make its way into the CPU’s registers in order for the ECU 12 to be operable. See Integrated circuit, Britannica Academic (Encyclopædia Britannica, March 20, 2023)1 (“Microprocessors contain some circuits, known as registers, that store . . . numbers that are to be operated on and also the result.”).
a first sensor device installed in the vehicle to obtain driving data of the vehicle including at least one of a speed, a position, or a direction of the vehicle;
“The collision determination ECU 20 is connected to a yaw rate sensor 13, a steering angle sensor 14, [and] a wheel speed sensor 15.” Matsunaga ¶ 26. Any single one of these sensors, and/or their identity as a group, falls within the scope of the claimed first sensor device.
a second sensor device installed in the vehicle to obtain surrounding data of the vehicle including data related using at least one of a camera, a radar sensor, or a lidar sensor, the surrounding data to at least one target around the vehicle;
The vehicle control system 100 further includes an object detection device 10 that “transmits millimeter waves, and detects a position of an object around the own vehicle and a relative speed of the object to the own vehicle on the basis of a reflected wave generated by reflection of the transmitted millimeter waves from the object.” Matsunaga ¶ 23.
a driving apparatus configured to control a driving direction and speed of the vehicle;
The vehicle itself has a “steering rod” and “a brake actuator.” Matsunaga ¶¶ 26–28.
and a controller comprising a processor configured to:
The vehicle control system 200 further includes a collision determination ECU 20 that includes “a computer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an input-output interface, and the like.” Matsunaga ¶ 29. Among other things, “[a] process shown in FIG. 6 is repeatedly performed in a predetermined cycle by the collision determination ECU 20.” Matsunaga ¶ 48.
process the surrounding data and the driving data,
Sensors 11–12 output the surrounding data to the collision determination ECU 20, while sensors 13–15 output information about the own vehicle to ECU 20 as well. Matsunaga ¶¶ 25–26.
identify a target around the vehicle based on the surrounding data,
The three object-related functional units 24–26 of the collision determination ECU 20 identify an object to track that is near the vehicle, based on the data received from object detection device 10. See Matsunaga ¶¶ 40–43.
project the vehicle and the target on the
“The radar ECU 12 calculates a position of an object around the own vehicle and a relative speed of the object to the own vehicle on the basis of the reflected wave signal outputted from the millimeter wave radar sensor 11. The radar ECU 12 outputs, to the collision determination ECU 20, the position of the object and the relative speed of the object to the own vehicle thus calculated.” Matsunaga ¶ 25.
calculate a danger range of the vehicle based on the driving data,
“At steps S12 to S16, a plurality of own vehicle presence regions EA1 on the own vehicle estimated route PA1 are calculated.” Matsunaga ¶ 51
expand the danger range of the vehicle in a specific direction based on a first weighting
The own vehicle presence regions EA1 are based on the own vehicle driving data, including a change acceleration α of the steering amount of the own vehicle [that] is calculated on the basis of the yaw rate ψ that indicates the change rate of the steering amount of the own vehicle,” Matsunaga ¶ 52, as well as a determination of “whether the own vehicle turns right or left.” Matsunaga ¶ 53.
applied to at least one of a plurality of coordinates of the vehicle, including a coordinate for a front right side of the danger range of the vehicle, a coordinate for a rear left side of the danger range of the vehicle, and a coordinate for a rear right side of the danger range of the vehicle on the
“In a case where it is determined at step S13 that the own vehicle turns right, at step S14, an increase amount ΔS1 of the own vehicle presence region EA1 when the own vehicle turns right is set on the basis of the yaw rate ψ and the change acceleration α of the steering amount of the own vehicle. In FIG. 7A, a hatched area indicates the increase amount ΔS1 of the own vehicle presence region EA1 when the own vehicle turns right.” Matsunaga ¶ 54. Similarly, “in a case where it is determined at step S13 that the own vehicle turns left, at step S15, an increase amount ΔS2 of the own vehicle presence region EA1 when the own vehicle turns left is set on the basis of a yaw rate ψ2 and a change acceleration α2 of the steering amount of the own vehicle calculated at step S12.” Matsunaga ¶ 59.
Hence, as FIG. 7A clearly shows, “at least one” (and indeed at least two) of the coordinates recited in the claim language are modified by the ΔS weights discussed above. This is because EA1 is defined as a four-cornered shape on the XY plane, and hence, EA1 (labeled as DA1 in earlier figures) is indeed expanded by adding the increased amounts to one or more of the coordinates that form the bounding box. See, e.g., Matsunaga ¶¶ 45–46, 49, and 54.
calculate a danger range of the target based on the surrounding data,
“At step S11, the object estimated route PA2 is calculated in the XY plane on the basis of the position of the object and the relative speed of the object to the own vehicle detected by the object detection device 10.” Matsunaga ¶ 50. “At step S18, a plurality of object presence regions EA2 that pass through the object estimated route PA2 are calculated. At step S19, the object solid D2 is calculated by interpolating, in the three-dimensional coordinate system, the plurality of object presence regions EA2 calculated at step S18.” Matsunaga ¶ 64.
expand the danger range of the target in a specific direction based on a second weighting applied to at least one of a plurality of coordinates of the target, including a coordinate for a front left side of the danger range of the target, a coordinate for a front right side of the danger range of the target, a coordinate for a rear left side of the danger range of the target, and a coordinate for a rear right side of the danger range of the target, on the
During step S18 mentioned above, “an increase amount ΔS3 of the object presence region EA2 is set on the basis of the sensor error σ acquired at step S41,” Matsunaga ¶ 89, and then “the object presence region EA2 is calculated by using the increase amount ΔS3.” Matsunaga ¶ 90.
The result is exactly the same as with the own vehicle, but for the other vehicle: “at least one” (and indeed at least two) of the coordinates recited in the claim language are modified by the ΔS weights discussed above, because EA2 is defined as a four-cornered shape on the XY plane, and hence, EA2 is indeed expanded by adding the increased amounts to one or more of the coordinates that form the bounding box.
determine a danger of collision based on an overlapping area of the expanded danger range of the vehicle and the expanded danger range of the target on the
“At step S20, it is determined whether the own vehicle solid D1 calculated at step S17 intersects the object solid D2 calculated at step S19. Specifically, when the overlapping region OA is present between the first determination region DA1 and the second determination region DA2 at the same elapsed time T, it is determined that the own vehicle solid D1 intersects the object solid D2.” Matsunaga ¶ 65.
control a braking device of the driving apparatus when the size of the overlapping area is greater than or equal to the predetermined value.
“When it is determined in the process at step S20 that the own vehicle solid D1 intersects the object solid D2, at step S21, it is determined that the object will collide with the own vehicle,” Matsunaga ¶ 66, triggering calculation of a time-to-collision (“TTC”) value, which is compared against a threshold. Matsunaga ¶¶ 67–68. “When it is determined in the subsequent process at step S23 that TTC is equal to or less than the threshold TH1, control proceeds to step S24,” Matsunaga ¶ 68, where “collision prevention control for the own vehicle is performed. For example, a speed reduction signal is outputted to the brake ECU 31 to reduce the own vehicle speed. Step S24 corresponds to an operation control unit.” Matsunaga ¶ 69.
According to the foregoing, there are only two differences between Matsunaga and the claimed invention: (1) Matsunaga’s map is not “high-definition,” and (2) Matsunaga does not teach a separate, lower-tiered threshold of control involving a display device or an audio device.
Andersson, however, teaches both of these differences, as well as several other overlapping features, including:
storing a high-definition map;
In some embodiments, “high-resolution map data is available,” making it possible for the vehicle to fine-tune its predictions about locations of different objects and features of the surrounding environment. Andersson ¶ 43.
a first sensor device installed in the vehicle to obtain driving data of the vehicle including at least one of a speed, a position, or a direction of the vehicle;
“The velocity of the vehicle 100 may be measured or estimated by the speedometer in the vehicle, or by the positioning device 330.” Andersson ¶ 67. “[V]ehicle 100 also comprises sensor 320 for measuring steering wheel angle αsw and steering wheel angle rate α′sw of the steering wheel of the vehicle 100. In some embodiments, two or more sensors 320 may be utilized, such as e.g. one sensor 320 for measuring the steering wheel angle αsw and a separate sensor 320 for measuring the steering wheel angle rate α′sw.” Andersson ¶ 66. “The geographical position of the vehicle 100 may be determined by a positioning device 330, or navigator, in the vehicle 100, which may be based on a satellite navigation system such as the Navigation Signal Timing and Ranging (Naystar) Global Positioning System (GPS), Differential GPS (DGPS), Galileo, GLONASS, or the like.” Andersson ¶ 68.
a second sensor device installed in the vehicle to obtain surrounding data of the vehicle including data related using at least one of a camera, a radar sensor, or a lidar sensor,
“The vehicle 100 comprises a camera 110 and a sensor 120.” Andersson ¶ 34. “The sensor 120 may comprise e.g. a radar, a lidar, an ultrasound device, a time-of-flight camera, and/or similar in different embodiments.” Andersson ¶ 37. “By using at least one camera 110 and at least one sensor 120, the advantages of the respective type of device may be combined. The advantage of the camera 110 is that it is enabled to distinguish between e.g. a [Vulnerable Road User (“VRU”)] and another object, also when the VRU is stationary. The advantages of the sensor 120 are the detection range, price, robustness and ability to operate in all weather conditions. Thereby high confidence detections and classifications may be achieved.” Andersson ¶ 39.
the surrounding data related to at least one target around the vehicle;
“When the vehicle 100 is driving in a driving direction 105, a camera 110 detects a VRU 200. An image recognition program may recognize the VRU 200 as a VRU and possibly also categorize it as e.g. a pedestrian, child, bicyclist, animal etc.” Andersson ¶ 78.
a driving apparatus configured to control a driving direction and speed of the vehicle;
Vehicle 100 further includes a control unit 310 that is “configured for generating control signals for performing the action by emitting a silent warning visually or haptically displayed to the driver of the vehicle 100, an audible warning, a short brake jerk for alerting the driver, a full brake to standstill or an alert for warning the VRU 200 of the collision risk.” Andersson ¶ 136. Additionally, the control signals may further include signals that induce “a steering wheel torque . . . to counteract the driver’s turning action.” Andersson ¶ 59.
and a controller comprising a processor configured to:
“Further, the control unit 310 comprises a processor 720 configured for performing at least some steps of the method 600.” Andersson ¶ 143.
process the surrounding data and the driving data,
“The control unit 310 comprises a receiving circuit 710 configured for receiving a signal from the sensor 320, from the positioning device 330 and/or the camera 110.” Andersson ¶ 142. “Further the control unit 310 may be configured for measuring steering wheel angle.” Andersson ¶ 140.
identify a target around the vehicle based on the surrounding data,
“When the vehicle 100 is driving in a driving direction 105, a camera 110 detects a VRU 200. An image recognition program may recognize the VRU 200 as a VRU and possibly also categorize it as e.g. a pedestrian, child, bicyclist, animal etc.” Andersson ¶ 78.
project the vehicle and the target on the high-definition map,
“A possible path of the vehicle 100 is predicted by using available information,” relative to “the road surface or natural borders of the road such as elevated sidewalks etc.,” optionally using the “high-resolution map data.” Andersson ¶ 43. “Further the control unit 310 is configured for receiving detection signals from the sensor 120 and mapping the detected VRU with the detection signals received from the sensor 120.” Andersson ¶ 85; see also FIG. 2 (illustrating how all of the data relates to the predicted paths of the vehicle 100 and the VRU 200).
calculate a danger range of the vehicle based on the driving data,
“Step 601 comprises predicting a future path t1, t2, t3 of the vehicle 100. In some embodiments, the predicted future path t1, t2, t3 of the vehicle 100 may correspond to a first area t1, t2, t3 occupied by the vehicle 100 during a set of future time frames.” Andersson ¶¶ 101–102 (emphasis added).
calculate a danger range of the target based on the surrounding data,
“Step 604 comprises predicting a future position 210 of the detected 602 VRU 200, based on the VRU position upon detection 602 and the determined 603 VRU velocity. The predicted future position 210 of the VRU 200 may comprise a second area 210 wherein the VRU 200 is expected to be situated at the set of future time frames in some embodiments.” Andersson ¶¶ 117–118 (emphasis added)
determine a danger of collision based on an overlapping area of the danger range of the vehicle and the danger range of the target on the high-definition map,
“Furthermore, in some embodiments, a probability of a collision to occur may be estimated, proportional to an overlap 220 between the first area t1, t2, t3 and the second area 210.” Andersson ¶ 119.
control a display device or an audio device of the driving apparatus when a size of the overlapping area is smaller than a predetermined value,
Different actions are taken depending on whether the probability of the collision—which again, is proportional to the amount of overlap 220 between the first area and the second area—is above or below a plurality of respective thresholds. Accordingly, “[t]he action for avoiding a collision may be dependent on the size of the overlap 220 between the predicted future position 210 of the VRU 200 and the predicted future path t1, t2, t3 of the vehicle 100.” Andersson ¶ 134 (emphasis added). To that end, “silent warning may be visually or haptically displayed to the driver of the vehicle 100 when the probability of a collision exceeds a first threshold limit,” or “[an] audible warning may be emitted when the probability of a collision exceeds a second threshold limit,” Andersson ¶ 131, but the other, break-related control actions are not taken when the probability is above the first or second thresholds yet the third threshold
and control a braking device of the driving apparatus when the size of the overlapping area is greater than or equal to the predetermined value.
“Further, the short brake jerk may be performed when the probability of a collision exceeds a third threshold limit. Furthermore, the full brake to standstill may be performed when the probability of a collision exceeds a fourth threshold limit, in some embodiments.” Andersson ¶ 131.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to copy Andersson’s improvements into an implementation of Matsunaga’s vehicle, allowing Matsunaga to utilize a high-resolution map and to control a display device or an audio device when a size of the overlapping area is less than a predetermined value. One would have been motivated to copy Andersson’s improvements, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, at least because “increasing [the control actions’] level of impact” relative to the probability of a collision, “it is avoided that the driver gets tired of a lot of false warnings and starts neglecting them.” Andersson ¶ 18.
Claim 2
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the danger range of the target is different from a size of the target,
“In the present embodiment, the object information calculation unit 26 calculates the object solid D2 by linearly interpolating four corners of the object presence regions EA2 adjacent to each other in the direction in which the T-axis defining the elapsed time extends.” Matsunaga ¶ 23.
and the danger range of the vehicle is different from a size of the vehicle.
“In the present embodiment, the own vehicle presence region EA1 is determined as a rectangular region including the entire outer periphery of the own vehicle as viewed from above the own vehicle.” Matsunaga ¶ 35. The “entire outer periphery” falls within the scope of “different from a size of the vehicle” because, as shown in the figures, the periphery is a rectangle occupied by the vehicle’s longest length dimension and widest width direction, even though the vehicle itself is not a perfect rectangle. See Matsunaga FIG. 2A. Furthermore, during operation, this region is expanded by amounts ΔS1 and/or ΔS2. Matsunaga ¶¶ 57 and 59.
Claim 3
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to:
predict an expected driving path of the vehicle and an expected driving path of the target based on processing the driving data and the surrounding data,
“At step S10, the own vehicle estimated route PA1 at the current position of the own vehicle is calculated,” and “[a]t step S11, the object estimated route PA2 is calculated.” Matsunaga ¶¶ 49–50.
and determine the danger of collision further based on the expected driving path of the vehicle and the expected driving path of the target.
At steps S16–S19, the ECU 20 calculates an own vehicle solid D1 based on the own vehicle’s estimated route PA1, and calculates an object solid D2 based on the object’s estimated route PA2. Then, “it is determined whether the own vehicle solid D1 calculated at step S17 intersects the object solid D2 calculated at step S19.” Matsunaga ¶ 65.
Claim 4
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to:
control the driving apparatus such that the danger range of the vehicle and the danger range of the target do not overlap.
“When it is determined in the subsequent process at step S23 that TTC is equal to or less than the threshold TH1, control proceeds to step S24,” Matsunaga ¶ 68, where “collision prevention control for the own vehicle is performed. For example, a speed reduction signal is outputted to the brake ECU 31 to reduce the own vehicle speed. Step S24 corresponds to an operation control unit.” Matsunaga ¶ 69.
Claim 5
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 2,
wherein the danger range of the vehicle is calculated based on at least one of a position, size, gear, driving direction, speed, or lateral acceleration of the vehicle.
With respect to position and speed, the “own vehicle information calculation unit 23 calculates an own vehicle solid D1 by interpolating a plurality of own vehicle presence regions EA1 in a three-dimensional coordinate system defined by the distance Y in the own vehicle traveling direction, the distance X in the vehicle width direction, and elapsed time T from the current time.” Matsunaga ¶ 38.
With respect to size, “the own vehicle presence region EA1 is determined as a rectangular region including the entire outer periphery of the own vehicle as viewed from above the own vehicle.” Matsunaga ¶ 35. While this is different from the actual size of the vehicle, it is still clearly “based on” the size of the vehicle, which is all that this claim requires.
With respect to driving direction and lateral acceleration, “[a] width change ΔW1 of the own vehicle presence region EA1 due to the change in the steering amount of the own vehicle is calculated by using a yaw rate ψ1 and a change acceleration α1 of the steering amount in the right direction of the own vehicle.” Matsunaga ¶ 56. The same is decided for ΔW2 when steering in the left direction. Matsunaga ¶ 61. In both cases, ΔW is then added to the vehicle presence region EA1 to modify the vehicle presence region EA1 with the new width.
To be clear, the claimed driving direction corresponds to yaw ψ1 (or ψ2 for the left turn), while the claimed lateral acceleration corresponds to acceleration angle α1 and α2 (likewise for the right and left directions).
Claim 6
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to:
impart the first weighting to at least one of the gear, speed, or lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and expand the danger range of the vehicle further based on the weighting.
As shown in Equations (1) and (2), to calculate the new width of the vehicle, “the collision determination ECU 20 sets the increase amount ΔS1 when the own vehicle turns right corresponding to the values ψ1, α1, and T,” Matsunaga ¶ 57, and likewise for the left turn. Matsunaga ¶ 62. These values (which pertain to at least lateral acceleration and speed), are set as multipliers for k, which “represents the length of the own vehicle in the vehicle length direction.” Matsunaga ¶ 56.
Claim 7
Matsunaga and Andersson teach the vehicle according to claim 2,
wherein the danger range of the target is calculated based on at least one of a type, position, size, speed, or driving direction of the target.
“In the present embodiment, the object information calculation unit 26 calculates the object solid D2 by linearly interpolating four corners of the object presence regions EA2 adjacent to each other in the direction in which the T-axis defining the elapsed time extends.” Matsunaga ¶ 23.
Claim 8
Matsunaga teaches the vehicle according to claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to:
impart the second weighting to at least one of the speed or the position
“At step S42, an increase amount ΔS3 of the object presence region EA2 is set on the basis of the sensor error σ acquired at step S41. In the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 11, the increase amount ΔS3 is set to a larger value as the elapsed time T is increased from the current time toward a future time on the object estimated route PA2. Furthermore, the increase amount ΔS3 is set to a larger value as the sensor error σ is increased.” Matsunaga ¶ 89. Notably, the sensor error σ represents the error in object detection device 10, and the object detection device 10 measures at least one of the speed or the position of the object, meaning the error σ is a weighting applied to the object detection device 10’s measurement of the object’s speed or position.
The only difference between Matsunaga and the invention of claim 8 is that Matsunaga’s weighting of speed or position does not depend on the “type” of the target.
Andersson, however, teaches a controller configured to:
impart the second weighting to at least one of the speed or the position depending on the type of the target, and expand the danger range of the target further based on the second weighting.
“The probability of a collision may also be dependent on a categorization of the VRU 200. To mention some examples, a child or an animal, in particular a game animal may increase the probability of a collision, as children and wild animals typically may behave in an unpredicted and stochastic manner. Some VRUs 200 may on the other hand be expected to behave in a rather predictable way in a traffic situation, for example motorcyclists, which could be expected to be adult, and be aware of the risks with erratic or non-predictable behaviour in road traffic.” Andersson ¶ 93.
Claims 10–17
Claims 10–17 recite a method that is identical to the method that the vehicle of claims 1–8 performs in its normal operation. As such, claims 10–18 are rejected over the same evidence and for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of corresponding claims 1–8. See MPEP § 2112.02 (“Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 Available at https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/integrated-circuit/106026#236555.toc
Prosecution Insights