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 .
The prior rejections are withdrawn in view of newly discovered prior art and further consideration of applicant’s amendment(s) to the independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “control unit which is configured to carry out ..” in claim 25.
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
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek et al (US Application: US 2016/0207530, published: Jul. 21, 2016, filed: Jan. 16, 2015) in view of Wang et al (“Crash Mitigation in Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles”, published: Jan. 2019, publisher: IEEE, pages 3313 - 3323) in view of Witteman (“Improved vehicle crashworthiness design by control of the energy absorption for different collision situations”, published: 1999, publisher: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, pages 1 and 30-34).
With regards to claim 11. Stanek et al teaches a method for handling a situation relating to a vehicle and/or at least one third party, the method comprising:
ascertaining or predicting a critical situation relating to the vehicle and/or at least one third party (contextual data relating to a host vehicle is collected and analyzed to ascertain or predict a potential critical/collision situation between the host vehicle and another party/vehicle/object (for clarity, see the
citation mappings/explanations for the remaining claim limitations of claim 11 below for examples of the analysis and prediction steps); and
detecting at least one object in surroundings of the vehicle and/or of the at least one third party (paragraph 0034, Fig. 5: at least one object vehicle in front of the host vehicle is detected, and/or a vehicle (third party vehicle) behind the host vehicle );
controlling the vehicle and/or the at least one third party relative to the at least one object or controlling the at least one object relative to the vehicle and/or the at least one third party (paragraph 0012, 0049: a host vehicle can be autonomously controlled via controller that reacts to contextual surroundings/objects and also driver input. In some cases the computer can regulate brake level to be different than the requested level of brake input), in an ordered sequence, such that:
in a first phase, a comparatively rapid or accelerated approach as a reduction in distance between the vehicle and/or the at least one third party and the at least one object is carried out (paragraph 0012, 0057, 0058, 0064, Fig. 7: in a first rapid approach (rapid negative acceleration (deceleration) is implemented between the host vehicle and the vehicle object in front of the host vehicle (a max). The examiner notes that rapid deceleration between the host vehicle approaching the vehicle-object in front of the host vehicle results in a reduction of distance (deceleration distance) with respect to a time td),
in a second phase, a comparatively slow or slowed down approach as a reduction in distance between the vehicle and/or the at least one third party and the at least one object, is carried out (paragraph 0012, 0057, 0058, 0064, Fig. 7: a subsequent slower approach (ad) to between the host vehicle and the vehicle object in front is implemented. The examiner notes that rapid deceleration between the host vehicle approaching the vehicle-object in front of the host vehicle results in a reduction of distance (deceleration distance) with respect to a time td); and
in a third phase, .. (paragraph 0012, Fig. 9: multiple phases are implemented /supported).
However Stanek does not expressly teach in a third phase, a contact between the vehicle and/or the at least one third party and the at least one object is carried out, wherein: in the third phase a lateral compressive force is generated on at least one contact point between the vehicle and the at least one object, and the lateral compressive force is generated in defined pulses or in dynamically controllable pulses.
Yet Wang et al teaches in a third phase, a contact between the vehicle and/or the at least one third party and the at least one object is carried out (Abstract, page 3321, Fig. 17-22, left column: a crash mitigation phase is implemented in an autonomous manner to initiate a sequence of braking , path selection and collision /contact between a host/ego vehicle and another vehicle (1) in the interest of minimizing severity of the contact through host vehicle control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Stanek’s ability to implement a plurality of phases when assessing driving situations, such that one of the phases would have included a contact/collision phase in a specific manner to reduce crash/contact severity, as taught by Wang et al. The combination would have allowed Stanek to have determined how to generate a path with lowest crash severity (Wang et al, page 3313, Section I. Introduction, left column).
However the combination does not expressly teach , wherein: in the third phase a lateral compressive force is generated on at least one contact point between the vehicle and the at least one object, and the lateral compressive force is generated in defined pulses or in dynamically controllable pulses.
Yet Witteman teaches , wherein: in the third phase a lateral compressive force is generated on at least one contact point between the vehicle and the at least one object, and the lateral compressive force is generated in defined pulses or in dynamically controllable pulses (page 31 and 32: during a collision that generates compressive force, the compressive force has multiple defined pulses that are generated as a result in different deceleration levels defined by construction of the vehicle ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Stanek and Wang et al’s ability to control a vehicle to an impact target/object, such that the vehicle further defines an impact pulse to regulate deceleration, as taught by Witteman. The combination would have allowed Stanek and Wang et al to have reduced injury level to occupants through optimized crash pules for different velocities.
With regards to claim 13. (New) The method as claimed in claim 11, Stanek teaches wherein the at least one object is a further vehicle, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11 (paragraph 0034, Fig. 5 of Staneck was explained to teach the object can be a vehicle positioned with respect to the host vehicle (such as vehicle in front of host vehicle heading in same direction as the host vehicle)), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 14. The method as claimed in claim 13, Staneck teaches wherein the further vehicle is moving in substantially a same direction as the vehicle and/or the at least one third party, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 13, and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 15. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches wherein the first phase, the second phase and/or the third phase are carried out depending on an operating action of a user of the vehicle and/or a unit for carrying out at least partially automated driving of the vehicle and/or a unit for carrying out at least partially automated driving of the at least one object, (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, the combination of Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches a computing unit can automate control of the host vehicle across first, second and/or three phases), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 16. The method as claimed in claim 15, Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches wherein the first phase, the second phase and/or the third phase are carried out depending on an interpretation of the operating action of the user of the vehicle (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, the combination of Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches at least one of the phases can be based upon user brake input of the vehicle to control the host vehicle), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 18. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches wherein the first phase, the second phase and/or the third phase are carried out upon detection or prediction of a mitigation of the critical situation relating to the vehicle and/or the at least one third party (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, a critical situation is detected based upon context situational data surrounding the host vehicle), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 25. The combination of Staneck, Wang and Witteman teaches a system for handling the situation relating to the vehicle and/or the at least one third party, the system comprising: a control unit which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek et al (US Application: US 2016/0207530, published: Jul. 21, 2016, filed: Jan. 16, 2015) in view of Wang et al (“Crash Mitigation in Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles”, published: Jan. 2019, publisher: IEEE, pages 3313 - 3323) in view of Witteman (“Improved vehicle crashworthiness design by control of the energy absorption for different collision situations”, published: 1999, publisher: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, pages 1 and 30-34) in view of Lu et al (“Multiple-Vehicle Longitudinal Collision Mitigation by Coordinated Brake Control”, published: September 2014, pages 1-13).
With regards to claim 12. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck, Wang et al and Witteman teaches wherein the critical situation relates to an imminent collision of the vehicle with a collision object and the at least one object, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However Staneck, Wang et al and Witteman does not expressly teach … the at least one object is different from the collision object.
Yet Lu et al teaches the at least one object is different from the collision object (page 2, left column, and also first paragraph of section 3: as explained, not just a single collision object /vehicle is detected in a critical situation, but the critical situation (for potential collision) is mitigated for multiple vehicle objects using vehicle to vehicle communications ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Staneck, Wang et al and Witteman’s ability to identify a critical situation between a host vehicle to another vehicle object, such that the critical situation encompasses detection/prediction that relates to collision between a plurality of vehicle objects, as taught by Lu et al. The combination would have allowed Staneck, Wang et al and Witteman to have “mitigate the impact of multiple vehicle longitudinal collision using coordinated brake control” (Lu et al, page 2, left column).
Claim(s) 17 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek et al (US Application: US 2016/0207530, published: Jul. 21, 2016, filed: Jan. 16, 2015) in view of Wang et al (“Crash Mitigation in Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles”, published: Jan. 2019, publisher: IEEE, pages 3313 - 3323) in view of Witteman (“Improved vehicle crashworthiness design by control of the energy absorption for different collision situations”, published: 1999, publisher: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, pages 1 and 30-34) in view of Fung et al (US Application: US 2016/0001781, published: Sep. 11, 2015).
With regards to claim 17. The method as claimed in claim 16, the combination of Staneck et al, Wang et al and Witteman teaches wherein the operating action, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 16, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach ... wherein the operating action is a requirement for lateral guidance of the vehicle.
Yet Fung et al teaches ... wherein the operating action is a requirement for lateral guidance of the vehicle (paragraph 0648, 0651, a driver’s steering guidance (lateral guidance) is an additional requirement to adjust a threshold for potential situation/driver state and also adjust a control coefficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Staneck et al, Wang et al and Witteman’s ability to identify an operating action and implement a particular control phase based upon context operating action and context objects surrounding the host vehicle, such that the operating action could have further included identification of a driver’s steering/lateral guidance input to further associate with the control of the host vehicle, as taught by Fung et al. The combination would have allowed Staneck et al, Wang et al and Witteman to have implemented safer vehicle control when drivers get drowsy/inattentive (Fung et al, paragraph 0007 and 0008).
Claim(s) 19 and 22-24 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanek et al (US Application: US 2016/0207530, published: Jul. 21, 2016, filed: Jan. 16, 2015) in view of Wang et al (“Crash Mitigation in Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles”, published: Jan. 2019, publisher: IEEE, pages 3313 - 3323) in view of Witteman (“Improved vehicle crashworthiness design by control of the energy absorption for different collision situations”, published: 1999, publisher: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, pages 1 and 30-34) in view of Newman et al (US Patent: 9701307, issued: Jul. 11, 2017, filed: Nov. 9, 2016).
With regards to claim 19. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Stanek et al, Wang et al and Witteman teaches wherein detecting the at least one object in the surroundings of the vehicle, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 11, and is rejected under similar rationale.
However the combination does not expressly teach … includes a determination of suitability of the at least one object for carrying out a contact and/or a selection of one of at least two objects from the surroundings of the vehicle.
Yet Newman et al teaches … includes a determination of suitability of the at least one object for carrying out a contact (Fig 6B, column 38, lines 12-47: analysis is performed to determine whether and how to carry out contact to the object in front to reduce/mitigate damage/critical-situation-severity, such as accelerating forward to spread collision force laterally over a larger area on side of host vehicle during instance/time of impact with the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have modified Stanek et al, Wang et al and Witteman’s ability to detect /identify an object with respect to the host vehicle, such that the detection/identification would further include subsequent suitability analysis as to how to carry out contact with an object in proximity to front of the host vehicle, as taught by Newman et al. The combination would have allowed Staneck, Wang et al and Witteman to have managed collision hazards in real-time to minimize harm/destruction (Newman, column 2, lines 33-41).
With regards to claim 22. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck et al, Wang et al, Witteman and Newman teaches wherein the lateral compressive force changes once in a period of 0.1 to 0.5 seconds, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 20 (Newman was explained to teach that before contact (zero lateral force) and then upon contact (force spread over side of host vehicle) and thus the force changes from zero prior to beginning of a period of time to some force occurring at the side of the host vehicle. The examiner interprets the start of an arbitrary period of time (which can start at time zero seconds) would be when an arbitrary lateral contact force changes from no contact to contact (at and after time zero) of the period, and thus the force occurs at the very least the beginning of any positive period of time), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 23. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck et al, Wang et al, Witteman and Newman teaches wherein the lateral compressive force changes once in a period of 0.51 to 1.0 seconds , as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 20 (Newman was explained to teach that before contact (zero lateral force) and then upon contact (force spread over side of host vehicle) and thus the force changes from zero prior to beginning of a period of time to some force occurring at the side of the host vehicle. The examiner interprets the start of an arbitrary period of time (which can start at time zero seconds) would be when an arbitrary lateral contact force changes from no contact to contact (at and after time zero) of the period, and thus the force occurs at the very least the beginning of any positive period of time), and is rejected under similar rationale.
With regards to claim 24. The method as claimed in claim 11, the combination of Staneck et al, Wang et al, Witteman and Newman teaches wherein the lateral compressive force changes once in a period of 1.1 to 3 seconds, as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 20 (Newman was explained to teach that before contact (zero lateral force) and then upon contact (force spread over side of host vehicle) and thus the force changes from zero prior to beginning of a period of time to some force occurring at the side of the host vehicle. The examiner interprets the start of an arbitrary period of time (which can start at time zero seconds) would be when an arbitrary lateral contact force changes from no contact to contact (at and after time zero) of the period, and thus the force occurs at the very least the beginning of any positive period of time), and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-19 under Staneck et al, Wang et al have been fully considered and are persuasive (with respect limitations associated with prior claim 21, which are now incorporated into corresponding independent claims 11 and 25). It is noted that claim 21’s limitations were originally interpreted as laterally navigating/controlling the vehicle to apply the laterally compressive force, however upon further consideration, claim 21’s limitations also encompass a broader aspect of generating lateral compressive force as a result of contact, and not due lateral navigation control of the vehicle. Under this broader interpretation, a new reference is now found applicable and is introduced in the rejection(s) above. As a result, the prior rejections that apply Staneck and Wang et al for claims 11 and 25 has been withdrawn. The examiner respectfully directs the applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 11 and 25 for an explanation as to how these claims are now rejected under a new combination of Staneck et al, Wang et al and Witteman. The examiner also respectfully directs attention to the ‘Note’ section below for interview discussion points (in the interest of expediting the prosecution of this application towards potential allowability).
The applicant argues with regards to claims 12-19 and 22-25, that they are allowable by virtue of their dependencies on claim 11. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 11 has been explained/shown as still rejected in the rejection and explanations above.
Note
The examiner recommends an interview to discuss the following clarifications for the independent claims:
Clarifying the phrase “carried out” in each of the claimed phase limitations are a result of the earlier mentioned ‘controlling’ (e.g. “in a first phase, through the control, a comparatively rapid or accelerated approach …”.
Clarifying how the generated compressive force is produced (current claim scope includes generating the compressive force as a result of varying impact degrees while in contrast applicant’s invention ‘applies’ the force as explained in paragraphs 0039 and 0067) by clarifying that the lateral compressive force is applied through lateral guidance of the vehicle (paragraph 0063) to the contact point (e.g.: "wherein in the third phase, through the control, laterally guiding the vehicle to the at least one object and applying a lateral compressive force to at least one contact point between the vehicle and the at least one object, and wherein the lateral compressive force is further applied in defined pulses or applied in dynamically controllable pulses").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172