DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed October 20th, 2025. Claims 30, 32-35, 37-45, and 47-49 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 20th, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “inevitable collision state (ICS) control unit” in claims 30, 31, 35, 36 and 44, “emergency control unit” in claims 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, and 44, “nominal control unit” in claims 31, 32, 34, 35, and 37, “detection module” in claims 30, 39, 43, and 44, “safety module” in claims 30, 31, 41, and 44, “distance control module” in claims 39 and 41, “selection module” in claim 41, and “velocity control module” in claim 43.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 30, 32-35, 37, 38, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Takahashi et al. (US Pub. No. 20090143951 A1), herein after Takahashi, and further in view of previously cited of record Costa et al. (US Pub. No. 20210053558 A1), herein after Costa.
Regarding claim 30, Takahashi teaches a vehicle comprising: a detection module configured for detecting one or more preceding vehicles driving ahead of the vehicle and for determining a respective velocity and a respective distance of each of the detected preceding vehicles with respect to the vehicle wherein the detection module is further configured for computing a safety distance between the vehicle and each of the detected preceding vehicles and for determining whether each of the determined distances is smaller than a respective safety distance (Takahashi: Para. 0060, teaching that an object information detection unit detects the speed and distance of preceding vehicles relative to the host vehicle; and Para. 0061 and 0062, teaching that zones that are defined as a distance around the host vehicle are calculated which indicate risk of collision if the preceding vehicle gets too close to the host vehicle), the safety distance corresponding to a distance over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle in case the corresponding preceding vehicle brakes at a predetermined safety acceleration and in case the vehicle brakes according to a predefined braking acceleration or jerk profile (Takahashi: Para. 0131 and 0136, teaching that the threshold distances for how far an object is from a host vehicle such that it is a collision risk is determined based on the acceleration/deceleration of the object relative to the host vehicle); and a safety module connected to the detection module wherein the safety module is configured for determining, for each preceding vehicle of at least a part of the one or more detected preceding vehicles for which the determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance, a respective candidate target acceleration of the vehicle wherein the safety module comprises (Takahashi: Para. 0073, teaching a target deceleration that is calculated for the host vehicle which is required to avoid collision with the preceding vehicle.): an inevitable collision state (ICS) control unit configured for determining whether the vehicle is or will be in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle by solving equations of motion for the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle taking into account the determined respective velocity and the respective distance of the corresponding preceding vehicle and taking into account a minimum possible acceleration achievable by the vehicle and said predetermined safety acceleration of the preceding vehicle, wherein the inevitable collision state corresponds to a state of the vehicle in which a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle is inevitable regardless of a modification of an acceleration of the vehicle wherein the ICS control unit is further configured for setting the respective candidate target acceleration to the minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is in an inevitable collision state (examiner interprets that the "minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle" is the maximum possible braking deceleration of the vehicle) (Takahashi: Para. 0200, teaching that when a collision is determined to be unavoidable the system determines the maximum possible deceleration that can be obtained to reduce the shock of impact from collision; and Para. 0061, teaching that the region for where collision can or cannot be avoided is calculated using the relative speed, acceleration, and distance between the host vehicle and the object); and an emergency control unit configured for determining the candidate target acceleration when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle according to an emergency acceleration modification scheme, wherein the emergency acceleration modification scheme is defined for achieving the respective safety distance within a predefined time and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a first predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching a time period required for the host vehicle to cause a maximum jerk that causes the host vehicle to reach a maximum deceleration upon detection of a collision risk); and a nominal control unit configured for checking, when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle, whether the respective safety distance can be achieved satisfying constraints including: within the predefined time and without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without an acceleration of the vehicle falling below a second predefined acceleration lower limit, and, if this is the case, computing a comfort acceleration modification scheme satisfying said constraints and being different from the emergency acceleration modification scheme, and setting the respective candidate target acceleration to the comfort acceleration modification scheme (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the farther distance being where the vehicle can be controlled to decelerate following the limited jerk threshold); and if this is not the case and the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle, the emergency control unit is further configured for setting the candidate target acceleration to the emergency acceleration modification scheme (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the closer distance requiring the deceleration to be above the limited jerk threshold to avoid collision).
Takahashi is silent to [a]n adaptive cruise control (ACC) system for a vehicle.
In a similar field, Costa teaches the use of [a]n adaptive cruise control (ACC) system for a vehicle (Costa: Para. 0035, teaching that the operations of the vehicle can be controlled by a cruise controller) for the benefit of reducing discomfort from manual adjustments of speed and acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the collision avoidance system that reduces discomfort from autonomous collision avoidance maneuvers from Takahashi to be operated via a cruise controller, as taught by Costa, for the benefit of reducing discomfort from manual adjustments of speed and acceleration.
Regarding claim 32, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein the nominal control unit is configured for determining whether the respective safety distance can be achieved according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme assuming that the corresponding preceding vehicle moves at a constant velocity corresponding to the determined respective velocity (Takahashi: Para. 0172 and 0173, teaching a limited jerk that is calculated for a time period wherein the deceleration is controlled such that the vehicle avoids a potential collision risk while preventing the driver from becoming uncomfortable from a sudden deceleration; and 0095, showing an example of calculating the threshold distances for deceleration where the acceleration of the preceding vehicle is assumed to be zero, thus the velocity of the preceding vehicle is constant).
Regarding claim 33, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein the emergency control unit is further configured for determining, based on the respective distance and the respective velocity: an emergency jerk profile defining a time evolution of the time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the first predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching calculating a jerk over a time period which is required to decelerate the host vehicle; and 0172, teaching determining a distance and time over which collision can be avoided without decelerating too fast according to a limited jerk threshold); and/or an emergency acceleration profile defining a time evolution of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the first predefined acceleration lower limit; and wherein the emergency control unit is configured for determining the respective candidate target acceleration according to the emergency jerk profile and/or to the emergency acceleration profile (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the closer distance requiring the deceleration to be above the limited jerk threshold to avoid collision).
Regarding claim 34, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 33, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 33, wherein the nominal control unit is further configured for, when the nominal control unit determines that the respective safety distance can be achieved by modifying the acceleration of the vehicle according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme, determining, based on the respective distance and the respective velocity determined for the corresponding preceding vehicle: a comfort jerk profile defining a time evolution of the time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the second predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0172 and 0173, teaching a limited jerk that is calculated for a time period wherein the deceleration is controlled such that the vehicle avoids a potential collision risk while preventing the driver from becoming uncomfortable from a sudden deceleration); and Costa goes on to further teach and/or a comfort acceleration profile defining a time evolution of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the second predefined acceleration lower limit; and wherein the nominal control unit is configured for determining the respective candidate target acceleration according to the comfort jerk profile and/or the comfort acceleration profile (Costa: Para. 0059, teaching that when a trajectory of the host vehicle and the trajectory an object that is a collision risk overlap an emergency maneuver is generated; Para. 0061, teaching that the emergency maneuver is generated to create a deceleration command that does not cause discomfort for the driver; and Para. 0063, teaching that the emergency maneuver is generated according to allowable deceleration and jerk limits).
Regarding claim 35, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 34, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 34, wherein the emergency control unit is configured for determining said emergency jerk profile and/or said emergency acceleration profile when the nominal control unit determines that the respective safety distance cannot be achieved by modifying the acceleration of the vehicle according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme and/or when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where the deceleration is required to avoid collision with the closer distance requiring the vehicle to decelerate faster than the limited jerk threshold; and Para. 0200, teaching that when a collision is determined to be unavoidable the system determines the maximum possible deceleration that can be obtained to reduce the shock of impact from collision).
Regarding claim 37, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein determining the respective candidate target acceleration according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme by the nominal control unit comprises determining the respective candidate acceleration as a first acceleration value (Takahashi: Para. 0172 and 0173, teaching a limited jerk that is calculated for a time period wherein the deceleration is controlled such that the vehicle avoids a potential collision risk while preventing the driver from becoming uncomfortable from a sudden deceleration); and wherein determining the respective candidate target acceleration according to the emergency acceleration modification scheme by the emergency control unit comprises determining the respective candidate acceleration as a second acceleration value; wherein the first acceleration value is greater than the second acceleration value (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching a time period required for the host vehicle to cause a maximum jerk that causes the host vehicle to reach a maximum deceleration upon detection of a collision risk).
Regarding claim 38, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 31, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 31, wherein a minimal value of the acceleration of the vehicle or the time derivative thereof according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme is greater than a minimal value of the acceleration of the vehicle or the time derivative thereof according to the emergency acceleration modification scheme (examiner interprets that the "minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle" is the maximum possible braking deceleration of the vehicle) (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching a time period required for the host vehicle to cause a maximum jerk that causes the host vehicle to reach a maximum deceleration upon detection of a collision risk).
Regarding claim 44, Takahashi teaches [a] vehicle comprising (Takahashi: Para. 0002, teaching that the invention applies to a vehicle): a vehicle trajectory control system configured for controlling an acceleration and/or a velocity of the vehicle (Takahashi: Para. 0014, teaching that the deceleration of a vehicle is controlled during collision avoidance); and a detection module configured for detecting one or more preceding vehicles driving ahead of the vehicle and for determining a respective velocity and a respective distance of each of the detected preceding vehicles with respect to the vehicle wherein the detection module is further configured for computing a safety distance between the vehicle and each of the detected preceding vehicles and for determining whether each of the determined distances is smaller than a respective safety distance (Takahashi: Para. 0060, teaching that an object information detection unit detects the speed and distance of preceding vehicles relative to the host vehicle; and Para. 0061 and 0062, teaching that zones that are defined as a distance around the host vehicle are calculated which indicate risk of collision if the preceding vehicle gets too close to the host vehicle), the safety distance corresponding to a distance over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle in case the corresponding preceding vehicle brakes at a predetermined safety acceleration and incase the vehicle brakes according to a predefined braking acceleration or jerk profile (Takahashi: Para. 0131 and 0136, teaching that the threshold distances for how far an object is from a host vehicle such that it is a collision risk is determined based on the acceleration/deceleration of the object relative to the host vehicle); and a safety module connected to the detection module wherein the safety module is configured for determining, for each preceding vehicle of at least a part of the one or more detected preceding vehicles for which the determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance, a respective candidate target acceleration of the vehicle wherein the safety module comprises (Takahashi: Para. 0073, teaching a target deceleration that is calculated for the host vehicle which is required to avoid collision with the preceding vehicle.): an inevitable collision state (ICS) control unit configured for determining whether the vehicle is or will be in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle by solving equations of motion for the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle taking into account the determined respective velocity and the respective distance of the corresponding preceding vehicle and taking into account a minimum possible acceleration achievable by the vehicle and said predetermined safety acceleration of the preceding vehicle, wherein the inevitable collision state corresponds to a state of the vehicle in which a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle is inevitable regardless of a modification of an acceleration of the vehicle wherein the ICS control unit is further configured for setting the respective candidate target acceleration corresponding to the minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is in an inevitable collision state (examiner interprets that the "minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle" is the maximum possible braking deceleration of the vehicle) (Takahashi: Para. 0200, teaching that when a collision is determined to be unavoidable the system determines the maximum possible deceleration that can be obtained to reduce the shock of impact from collision; and Para. 0061, teaching that the region for where collision can or cannot be avoided is calculated using the relative speed, acceleration, and distance between the host vehicle and the object); an emergency control unit configured for determining the candidate target acceleration when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle according to an emergency acceleration modification scheme, wherein the emergency acceleration modification scheme is defined for achieving the respective safety distance within a predefined time and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a first predefined acceleration lower limit, wherein the vehicle trajectory control system is configured for controlling the acceleration and/or the velocity of the vehicle according to a target velocity and/or to a candidate target acceleration determined by the ACC system (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching a time period required for the host vehicle to cause a maximum jerk that causes the host vehicle to reach a maximum deceleration upon detection of a collision risk); and a nominal control unit configured for checking, when the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle, whether the respective safety distance can be achieved satisfying constraints including: within the predefined time and without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without an acceleration of the vehicle falling below a second predefined acceleration lower limit, and, if this is the case, computing a comfort acceleration modification scheme satisfying said constraints and being different from the emergency acceleration modification scheme, and setting the respective candidate target acceleration to the comfort acceleration modification scheme (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the farther distance being where the vehicle can be controlled to decelerate following the limited jerk threshold); and if this is not the case and the ICS control unit determines that the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle, the emergency control unit is further configured for setting the candidate target acceleration to the emergency acceleration modification scheme, wherein the vehicle trajectory control system is configured for controlling the acceleration and/or the velocity of the vehicle according to a target velocity and/or to a candidate target acceleration determined by the ACC system (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the closer distance requiring the deceleration to be above the limited jerk threshold to avoid collision).
Takahashi is silent to an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system.
In a similar field, Costa teaches the use of an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system (Costa: Para. 0035, teaching that the operations of the vehicle can be controlled by a cruise controller) for the benefit of reducing discomfort from manual adjustments of speed and acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the collision avoidance system that reduces discomfort from autonomous collision avoidance maneuvers from Takahashi to be operated via a cruise controller, as taught by Costa, for the benefit of reducing discomfort from manual adjustments of speed and acceleration.
Claims 39, 41, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Costa as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Ishioka et al. (US Pub. No. 20170232966 A1), herein after Ishioka.
Regarding claim 39, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 30, further comprising a distance control module connected with the detection module and configured for, for each of at least a part of the one or more preceding vehicles for which the determined respective distance equals or exceeds the respective safety distance, determining whether the vehicle is in a potential collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle wherein the potential collision state corresponds to a state of the vehicle in which when the corresponding preceding vehicle initiates a… braking manoeuvre, a distance between the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle will become smaller than the respective safety distance within a predefined time interval unless the acceleration of the vehicle is modified (Takahashi: Para. 0136, teaching that the threshold distances for determining a collision risk with an object is updated based on if the object suddenly accelerates).
They are silent to the braking manoeuvre performed by the preceding vehicle being a full braking manoeuvre.
In a similar field, Ishioka teaches determining whether the vehicle is in a potential collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle wherein the potential collision state corresponds to a state of the vehicle in which when the corresponding preceding vehicle initiates a full braking manoeuvre (Ishioka: Para. 0073 and 0075, teaching a target trajectory modification for a host vehicle following a preceding vehicle wherein the trajectory is modified incase the preceding vehicle suddenly stops) for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the correction of the collision risk area based on the object’s acceleration from Takahashi in view of Costa to also consider when the object’s acceleration is a full braking manoeuvre, as taught by Ishioka, for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
Regarding claim 41, Takahashi, Costa, and Ishioka remain as applied as in claim 39, and Costa goes on to further teach [t]he ACC system of claim 39, further comprising a selection module configured for selecting, among all candidate target accelerations determined by the safety module or the distance control module a minimal candidate target acceleration, wherein the minimal candidate target acceleration is smaller than all other candidate target accelerations (Costa: Para. 0059, teaching that when a trajectory of the host vehicle and the trajectory an object that is a collision risk overlap an emergency maneuver is generated; Para. 0061, teaching that the emergency maneuver is generated to create a deceleration command that does not cause discomfort for the driver; and Para. 0064, teaching that parameters used in the emergency maneuver such as the amount to decelerate are run through a minimizing function to determine the least amount of change that can be made to a vehicle's operating state to avoid a collision without causing the driver's discomfort).
Regarding claim 42, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, however they are silent to [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein the respective safety distance corresponds to a distance between the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle in case of a full braking of the corresponding preceding vehicle.
In a similar field, Ishioka teaches [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein the respective safety distance corresponds to a distance between the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle in case of a full braking of the corresponding preceding vehicle (Ishioka: Para. 0073 and 0075, teaching a target trajectory modification for a host vehicle following a preceding vehicle wherein the trajectory is modified incase the preceding vehicle suddenly stops) for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the correction of the collision risk area based on the object’s acceleration from Takahashi in view of Costa to also consider when the object’s acceleration is a full braking manoeuvre, as taught by Ishioka, for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Costa as applied to claim 30 above, in further view of previously cited of record Yano et al. (US Patent No. 6282483 B1), herein after Yano, and further in view of Ishioka.
Regarding claim 40, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, and Takahashi goes on to further teach multiple threshold distances that a preceding vehicle is away from the host vehicle wherein the invention of Takahashi excludes the vehicle from deceleration control (Takahashi: Para. 0119, “In five regions A1 to A5 out of the nine regions, collision can be avoided with the longitudinal jerk |Jx| or the lateral jerk |Jy| generated which is smaller than the upper-limit longitudinal jerk |Jxlmt| or the upper-limit lateral jerk |Jylmt|, respectively. In these regions, the possibility that the driver performs avoidance operation is high. In the regions A1 to A5, therefore, it is not necessary to perform warning for collision avoidance or deceleration control for collision avoidance.”).
They are silent to [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein said at least a part of the one or more detected preceding vehicles for which the determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance and/or said at least a part of the one or more preceding vehicles for which the determined distance equals or exceeds the respective safety distance comprises preceding vehicles for which an exclusion condition is not fulfilled, wherein the exclusion condition is fulfilled for a given preceding vehicle when another preceding vehicle exists for which the determined distance and the determined velocity are respectively smaller than the distance and velocity determined for said given preceding vehicle; and/or a difference between the distance determined for said given preceding vehicle and a stopping distance of the vehicle is equal to or greater than zero or a security margin, wherein the stopping distance of the vehicle corresponds to a minimal distance covered by the vehicle until the vehicle comes to a zero-velocity state, in particular according to a predefined braking acceleration modification scheme.
In a similar field, Yano teaches [t]he ACC system of claim 30, wherein said at least a part of the one or more detected preceding vehicles for which the determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance and/or said at least a part of the one or more preceding vehicles for which the determined distance equals or exceeds the respective safety distance comprises preceding vehicles for which an exclusion condition is not fulfilled (Yano: Page 28, columns 11 line 62 through column 12 line 14, teaching that a safe following distance and a risk of collision for vehicles in front of a host vehicle are calculated for each vehicle to determine which has a higher degree of risk), wherein the exclusion condition is fulfilled for a given preceding vehicle when another preceding vehicle exists for which the determined distance and the determined velocity are respectively smaller than the distance and velocity determined for said given preceding vehicle (Yano: Page 28, columns 12, lines 21-42, teaching that a closer vehicle D is deemed to have a higher degree of risk of collision than a more distant vehicle C during certain driving maneuvers) for the benefit of assessing the risk of collision with every vehicle in the vicinity of the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the collision avoidance system from Takahashi in view of Costa to monitor a plurality of nearby vehicle and prioritize vehicles that are closer to the host vehicle, as taught by Yano, for the benefit of assessing the risk of collision with every vehicle in the vicinity of the host vehicle.
Takahashi in view of Costa in further view of Yano are silent to the exclusion condition is fulfilled when a difference between the distance determined for said given preceding vehicle and a stopping distance of the vehicle is equal to or greater than zero or a security margin, wherein the stopping distance of the vehicle corresponds to a minimal distance covered by the vehicle until the vehicle comes to a zero-velocity state, in particular according to a predefined braking acceleration modification scheme.
In a similar field, Ishioka teaches a difference between the distance determined for said given preceding vehicle and a stopping distance of the vehicle is equal to or greater than zero or a security margin, wherein the stopping distance of the vehicle corresponds to a minimal distance covered by the vehicle until the vehicle comes to a zero-velocity state, in particular according to a predefined braking acceleration modification scheme (Ishioka: Para. 0073 and 0075, teaching modifying a target trajectory for a host vehicle following a preceding vehicle wherein the trajectory is modified incase the preceding vehicle suddenly stops so that the host vehicle has enough distance to stop without colliding with the preceding vehicle) for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the regions of Takahashi where the preceding vehicle is excluded from the collision avoidance and warning system from Takahashi in view of Costa in further view of Yano to also factor in when the preceding vehicle suddenly stops, as taught by Ishioka, for the benefit of ensuring safety of the host vehicle.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Costa as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Brandin; Magnus (US Pub. No. 20170210359 A1), herein after Brandin.
Regarding claim 43, Takahashi and Costa remain as applied as in claim 30, however they are silent to [t]he ACC system of claim 30, further comprising a velocity control module connected with the detection module and configured for determining a target velocity of the vehicle configured for not exceeding a detection range velocity, wherein the detection range velocity is a maximal velocity from which the vehicle can transition to a zero-velocity state over a detection range distance, wherein the detection range distance is the maximum distance from the vehicle at which a preceding vehicle can be detected by the detection module in particular from a state of maximal acceleration of the vehicle and/or according to a predefined braking acceleration modification scheme.
In a similar field, Brandin teaches [t]he ACC system of claim 30, further comprising a velocity control module connected with the detection module and configured for determining a target velocity of the vehicle configured for not exceeding a detection range velocity, wherein the detection range velocity is a maximal velocity from which the vehicle can transition to a zero-velocity state over a detection range distance, wherein the detection range distance is the maximum distance from the vehicle at which a preceding vehicle can be detected by the detection module in particular from a state of maximal acceleration of the vehicle and/or according to a predefined braking acceleration modification scheme (Brandin: Para. 0022, teaching a vehicle safety assist system that determines a maximum sensing range of a sensor of a host vehicle and a relative kinematic property reliability measure which is dependent on the range of the sensor and the relative speed of the host vehicle compared to a sensed vehicle; Para. 0107, teaching that the relative kinematic property reliability measure is dependent on the range of the sensor and the relative distance between the host vehicle and the sensed vehicle; Para. 0108, teaching that a risk of collision is calculated based on the relative kinematic property reliability measure and the speed of the host vehicle in various scenarios; and Para. 0148, teaching that one of the risk scenarios contemplated includes if the preceding vehicle comes to a sudden full stop) for the benefit of improving the collision risk assessment of vehicles that are distant from the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the collision risk assessment based on distance from the host vehicle from Takahashi in view of Costa with the determination of risk based on the preceding vehicles’ distance from the host vehicle and the host vehicle’s sensor range, as taught by Brandin, for the benefit of improving the collision risk assessment of vehicles that are distant from the host vehicle.
Claims 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in further view of Yano.
Regarding claim 45, Takahashi teaches [a] method of determining a target acceleration of a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting one… preceding vehicles driving ahead of the vehicle; determining a velocity and a distance of each of the… detected preceding vehicles with respect to the vehicle (Takahashi: Para. 0060, teaching that an object information detection unit detects the speed and distance of preceding vehicles relative to the host vehicle; and Para. 0061 and 0062, teaching that zones that are defined as a distance around the host vehicle are calculated which indicate risk of collision if the preceding vehicle gets too close to the host vehicle); and computing a safety distance between the vehicle and each of the one or more detected preceding vehicle and determining the target acceleration by determining for each preceding vehicle of at least a part of the… detected preceding vehicles, a respective candidate target acceleration of the vehicle and by selecting as the target acceleration the minimal candidate target acceleration, wherein determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration for a corresponding preceding vehicle comprises in each case: determining whether the corresponding determined distance is smaller than a respective safety distance (Takahashi: Para. 0073, teaching a target deceleration that is calculated for the host vehicle which is required to avoid collision with the preceding vehicle.), the safety distance corresponding to a distance over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle incase the corresponding preceding vehicle brakes at a predetermined safety acceleration and in case the vehicle brakes according to a predefined braking acceleration or jerk profile, and, when the corresponding determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance (Takahashi: Para. 0131 and 0136, teaching that the threshold distances for how far an object is from a host vehicle such that it is a collision risk is determined based on the acceleration/deceleration of the object relative to the host vehicle): determining whether the vehicle is or will be in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle by solving equations of motion for the vehicle and the corresponding preceding vehicle taking into account the determined respective velocity and the respective distance of the corresponding preceding vehicle and taking into account a minimum possible acceleration achievable by the vehicle and said predetermined safety acceleration of the preceding vehicle, wherein the inevitable collision state corresponds to a state of the vehicle in which a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle is inevitable regardless of a modification of an acceleration of the vehicle and when the vehicle is in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle, setting the corresponding candidate target acceleration to the minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle (examiner interprets that the "minimal possible acceleration of the vehicle" is the maximum possible braking deceleration of the vehicle) (Takahashi: Para. 0200, teaching that when a collision is determined to be unavoidable the system determines the maximum possible deceleration that can be obtained to reduce the shock of impact from collision; and Para. 0061, teaching that the region for where collision can or cannot be avoided is calculated using the relative speed, acceleration, and distance between the host vehicle and the object); and if the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration according to an emergency acceleration modification scheme, wherein the emergency acceleration modification scheme is defined for achieving the respective safety distance within a predefined time and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a first predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching a time period required for the host vehicle to cause a maximum jerk that causes the host vehicle to reach a maximum deceleration upon detection of a collision risk), wherein when the corresponding determined distance is smaller than the respective safety distance and the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration for a corresponding preceding vehicle further comprises: determining whether it is feasible to achieve the respective safety distance by modifying the acceleration of the vehicle according to a comfort acceleration modification scheme, wherein the comfort acceleration modification scheme is defined for achieving the respective safety distance within a predefined time and/or without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below a predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without an acceleration of the vehicle falling below a second predefined acceleration lower limit, and if it is feasible to achieve the respective safety distance according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme, determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the farther distance being where the vehicle can be controlled to decelerate following the limited jerk threshold); and wherein the corresponding candidate target acceleration is determined according to the emergency acceleration modification scheme when the vehicle is not in an inevitable collision state with respect to the corresponding preceding vehicle and it is not feasible to achieve the respective safety distance according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the closer distance requiring the deceleration to be above the limited jerk threshold to avoid collision).
Takahashi is silent to the method being applied to multiple preceding vehicles.
In a similar field, Yano teaches [a] method of determining a target acceleration of a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting one or more preceding vehicles driving ahead of the vehicle; determining a velocity and a distance of each of the one or more detected preceding vehicles with respect to the vehicle (Yano: Page 28, columns 11 line 62 through column 12 line 14, teaching that a safe following distance and a risk of collision for vehicles in front of a host vehicle are calculated for each vehicle to determine which has a higher degree of risk) for the benefit of reducing risk of collision with multiple vehicles near the host vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the collision avoidance system and methods for one preceding vehicle from Takahashi to apply its methods to multiple preceding vehicles, as taught by Yano, for the benefit of reducing risk of collision with multiple vehicles near the host vehicle.
Regarding claim 47, Takahashi and Yano remain as applied as in claim 45, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 45, wherein determining whether it is feasible to achieve the respective safety distance by modifying the acceleration of the vehicle according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme comprises assuming that the corresponding preceding vehicle moves at a constant velocity, corresponding to the determined respective velocity (Takahashi: Para. 0172 and 0173, teaching a limited jerk that is calculated for a time period wherein the deceleration is controlled such that the vehicle avoids a potential collision risk while preventing the driver from becoming uncomfortable from a sudden deceleration; and 0095, showing an example of calculating the threshold distances for deceleration where the acceleration of the preceding vehicle is assumed to be zero, thus the velocity of the preceding vehicle is constant).
Regarding claim 48, Takahashi and Yano remain as applied as in claim 45, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 45, wherein determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration (ctai) according to the emergency acceleration modification scheme comprises determining (130i), based on the respective distance (di) and the respective velocity (v) determined for the corresponding preceding vehicle (Vi): an emergency jerk profile (jemergency(t)) defining a time evolution of the time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance (sdi) within the predefined time (tc) and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the first predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0074, teaching calculating a jerk over a time period which is required to decelerate the host vehicle; and 0172, teaching determining a distance and time over which collision can be avoided without decelerating too fast according to a limited jerk threshold); and/or an emergency acceleration profile (aemergency(t)) defining a time evolution of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance (sdi) within the predefined time (tc) and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the first predefined acceleration lower limit; and wherein the respective candidate target acceleration (ctai) for the corresponding preceding vehicle (Vi) is determined according to the emergency jerk profile (jemergency(t)) and/or to the emergency acceleration profile (aemergency(t)) (Takahashi: Para. 0179, teaching 3 threshold distances where deceleration is necessary with the closer distance requiring the deceleration to be above the limited jerk threshold to avoid collision).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Yano as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Costa.
Regarding claim 49, Takahashi and Yano remain as applied as in claim 45, and Takahashi goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 45, wherein determining the corresponding candidate target acceleration according to the comfort acceleration modification scheme comprises determining based on the respective distance and the respective velocity determined for the corresponding preceding vehicle: a comfort jerk profile defining a time evolution of the time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the second predefined acceleration lower limit (Takahashi: Para. 0172 and 0173, teaching a limited jerk that is calculated for a time period wherein the deceleration is controlled such that the vehicle avoids a potential collision risk while preventing the driver from becoming uncomfortable from a sudden deceleration)
They are silent to a comfort acceleration profile defining a time evolution of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the second predefined acceleration lower limit; and wherein the respective candidate target acceleration for the corresponding preceding vehicle is determined according to the comfort jerk profile and/or the comfort acceleration profile.
In a similar field, Costa teaches a comfort acceleration profile defining a time evolution of the acceleration of the vehicle allowing to achieve the respective safety distance within the predefined time without a time derivative of the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the predefined acceleration derivative lower limit and/or without the acceleration of the vehicle falling below the second predefined acceleration lower limit; and wherein the respective candidate target acceleration for the corresponding preceding vehicle is determined according to the comfort jerk profile and/or the comfort acceleration profile (Costa: Para. 0059, teaching that when a trajectory of the host vehicle and the trajectory an object that is a collision risk overlap an emergency maneuver is generated; Para. 0061, teaching that the emergency maneuver is generated to create a deceleration command that does not cause discomfort for the driver; and Para. 0063, teaching that the emergency maneuver is generated according to allowable deceleration and jerk limits) for the benefit of reducing discomfort due to sudden decelerations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the jerk control scheme for collision avoidance braking from Takahashi to create the scheme based around deceleration limits instead, as taught by Costa, for the benefit of reducing discomfort due to sudden decelerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed October 20th, 2025 with respect to the 103 rejections of record have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 14 lines 14-21, filed October 20th, 2025) that Takahashi does not teach a safety distance which corresponds to a distance over which the vehicle can stop without a collision with the corresponding preceding vehicle in case the corresponding preceding vehicle brakes at a predetermined safety acceleration and in case the vehicle brakes according to a predefined braking acceleration or jerk profile. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Takahashi does teach this in at least paragraphs 0131 and 0136 which teach that the risk area for collision between the host vehicle and an object are determined by the relative acceleration between the vehicle and the object.
Applicant contends (see page 14 lines 25-27, filed October 20th, 2025) that the region where collision cannot be avoided in Takahashi is not analogous to the claimed inevitable collision state analysis performed by the claimed invention because it is not obtained by solving equations of motion under any specific bounded-acceleration assumptions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Takahashi does teach that the regions for where collision between the host vehicle and the object can and cannot be avoided is based on equations of motions which include the difference in speed and acceleration between the host vehicle and the object in at least paragraph 0061 of Takahashi as it recites determining a “The collision avoidance calculation unit 3 calculates a collision-avoidable limit distance and a jerk-limited collision avoidable distance based on the steering angle .delta., the vehicle velocity V1_0, the vehicle longitudinal acceleration rate Gx1_0, the vehicle lateral acceleration rate Gy1_0, and the master brake pressure Pm, all of which are obtained by the host vehicle information detection unit 1 and based on the relative distance .DELTA.x0 between the object and the host vehicle, the object velocity V2_0, and the object acceleration rate Gx2_0, all of which are obtained by the object information detection unit 2. Based on the collision-avoidable limit distance and the jerk-limited collision avoidable distance, the collision avoidance calculation unit 3 further calculates the risk of collision between the host vehicle and the object”.
Applicant contends (see page 15 lines 1-20, filed October 20th, 2025) that the combination of Takahashi in view of Costa requires impermissible hindsight as there is no reason to calculate the regions of Takahashi based on acceleration of the host vehicle and object, “Recast Takahashi's "unavoidable region" as Applicant's ICS feasibility derived by solving equations of motion under the paired acceleration bounds”, and “Impose Applicant's asymmetric constraints (jerk bounded only in comfort; jerk unbounded in emergency) together with the predefined-time feasibility requirement, plus the mandated selection sequence and specific candidate- acceleration settings for each branch”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner notes that Takahashi alone teaches these features, thus there is no issue with impermissible hindsight regarding the combination of Takahashi in view of Costa in teaching the at issue limitations.
Applicant contends (see page 16, filed October 20th, 2025) that independent claims 44 and 45 are allowable over the prior art of record for containing subject matter that rendered claim 30 allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limitations at issue have not rendered independent claims 44 and 45 allowable over the prior art of record for the same reason that they have not rendered claim 30 allowable over the prior art of record.
Applicant contends (see pages 15-16, filed October 20th, 2025) that the dependent claims are allowable over the prior art of record as they depend upon claims that are allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as the independent claims have not been rendered allowable, the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (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.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663