DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the request for continued examination (RCE), filed 1 October 2025, and amendment, filed 8 September 2025, both of which were in response to the final action, dated 21 July 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 October 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 1 October 2025 complies with 35 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 Form is enclosed herewith.
Response to RCE and Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6-12 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 11 have been amended and claims 2 and 5 have been canceled.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the documented limitations (pgs. 3-6, Final) Applicant has neither amended the claims nor rebutted the interpretation. Accordingly, the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the documented limitations has been maintained, as discussed below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-12 (pgs. 6-30, Final) applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1 and 7 in view of Silva and Kawakita; claims 3 in view of Saliva, Kawakita and Nagata; claim 4 in view of Silva, Kawakita and Minemura; claim 6 in view of Silva, Kawakita, Nagata and Minemura; and claims 8 and 9 in view of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura and Wang; and claims 10-12 in view of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura, Wang and Minemura, as discussed below. The rejection of claims 2 and 5 have been rendered moot by their cancelation.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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) 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), 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), 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:
“a traveling environment recognizer configured to recognize ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0040] disclosing that that the image recognition_ECU 13 may serve as a “traveling environment recognizer” that recognizes the traveling environment information outside the vehicle along with the stereo camera 11 and the IPU 12; [0184] disclosing that the image recognition_ECU 13, the travel_ECU 14, the CP_ECU 21, the E/G_ECU 22, the T/M_ECU 23, the BK_ECU 24, the PS_ECU 25 and the like are each constituted by a known microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU));
“an obstacle recognizer configured to recognize ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0100] disclosing that the travel_ECU 14 may serve as an “obstacle recognizer”, “an emergency collision avoidance controller”, an “oncoming moving body recognizer”, a “lateral position calculator”, a “risk degree calculator”, and a “preliminary collision avoidance controller” ; [0041]; [0184]);
“an oncoming moving body recognizer configured to recognize ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0100]; [0041]; [0184]);
“a lateral position calculator configured to calculate ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0100]; [0041]; [0184]);
“a risk degree calculator configured to calculate ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0100]; [0041]; [0184]); and
“a preliminary collision avoidance controller configured to recognize ... “ (claim 1, see specification at [0100]; [0041]; [0184]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The traveling environment recognizer, the obstacle recognizer, the oncoming moving body recognizer, the lateral position calculator, the risk degree calculator, and the preliminary collision avoidance controller are interpreted as being constituted by a microcomputer that includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a non-volatile storage unit, and the like, and peripheral devices thereof (see specification, [0184]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0370921 to Silva in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0371620 to Kawakita.
As per claim 1, Silva discloses [a] vehicle driving assistance device (see at least Silva, Abstract)
a traveling environment recognizer configured to recognize traveling environment information about a traveling environment outside a vehicle (see at least Silva, [0097] disclosing FIG. 6 illustrates an example process 600 for determining predictions and/or probabilities associated with a potential collision between a vehicle and an object moving in an environment, and determining actions for the vehicle to take based on the collision predictions and/or probabilities; [0098] disclosing that At operation 602, the vehicle safety system 534 may receive or determine data identifying a trajectory for a vehicle traversing an environment);
an obstacle recognizer configured to recognize, based on the traveling environment information, an obstacle present on a traveling path of the vehicle (see at least Silva, [0099] disclosing that at operation 604, the vehicle safety system 534 may receive state data associated with one or more other objects moving in the same environment in which the vehicle 102 is moving; [0100] disclosing that at operation 606, the vehicle safety system 534 may determine a perturbed trajectory for the object (e.g., vehicle 106) based on the state data received for the object in operation 604; [0101] disclosing that at operation 608, the vehicle safety system 534 may determine an intersection between the vehicle trajectory received or determined at operation 602 and the perturbed trajectory of the object (e.g., vehicle 106) determined at operation 606. In some examples, the intersection component 542 may perform one or more of the various techniques described herein to determine an intersection the vehicle trajectory and the perturbed trajectory for the vehicle 106. For instance, the intersection component 542 may determine a potential collision zone and perform a time-space overlap analysis within the potential collision zone, between the vehicles 102 and 106);
an emergency collision avoidance controller configured to, upon determination that the vehicle is highly likely to collide with the obstacle, perform emergency collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision of the vehicle with the obstacle (see at least Silva, [0107] disclosing that with regard to Fig. 7, at operation 614, the vehicle safety system 534 may determine one or more actions for the vehicle 102 to take, based on the collision predictions determined and/or probabilities calculated in operation 612. And further disclosing that the action component 546 may determine actions for the vehicle 102 include slowing or stopping the vehicle 102 to yield to the object, changing lanes or swerving to left or right to avoid the object, and/or performing any other vehicle through the system controller(s) 528 to increase the likelihood of avoiding and/or mitigating the damage of a potential collision);
an oncoming moving body recognizer configured to recognize, based on the traveling environment information, an oncoming moving body moving in an oncoming lane adjacent to a traveling lane of the vehicle and having a velocity component in a direction opposite to a traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Silva, Fig. 1, Fig. 2A; [0033] disclosing that the vehicle safety system may determine sizes and/or spatial regions associated with the vehicle 102 and the object vehicle 106, and may use the sizes or regions along with the vehicle trajectories to determine the possibility or likelihood of a potential collision between the vehicles 102 and 106. As shown in FIG. 2A, in some examples the vehicle safety system may determine a bounding box 202 associated with the vehicle 102, and a bounding box 204 associated with the object vehicle 106. The bounding boxes 202 and 204 may be based on the dimensions (e.g., length, width, and height) and the shape of the respective vehicles, including a safety buffer representative of a safe distance around the vehicles 102 and 106 to avoid a collision. And further that the size and shape of safety buffers used for the bounding boxes 202 and 204 may depend on the size, speed, type, or other characteristics of the vehicles 102 and 106. For instance, a larger safety buffer may be used for higher-speed vehicles, more vulnerable vehicles/objects (e.g., bicycles or pedestrians), or for scenarios in which the vehicle safety system has less confidence in the perception data for the size, shape, trajectory or other state parameters of the object vehicle 106);
wherein the traveling lane is separated from the oncoming lane by a lane marker (see at least Silva, Fig. 1, showing the traveling lane separated from the oncoming lane by the center line 114 <interpreted as a lane marker>; [0025]);
a lateral position calculator configured to calculate, at each set cycle (see at least Silva, [0080] disclosing that the action component 546 may determine one or more actions for the vehicle 502 to take, based on predictions and/or probability determinations of a collision between the vehicle 502 another object (e.g., vehicle 106), along with other factors. And further that responsive to determining to adjust a lateral position of the vehicle, such as in a lane change to the left or to the right, the vehicle safety system 534 may cause the components 540-546 to generate an updated vehicle trajectory (or path polygon), plot additional object trajectories with respect to the updated vehicle trajectory, determine updated potential collision zones, and perform time-space overlap analyses to determine whether a collision risk may still exist after the determined action is performed by the vehicle 502; Fig. 6 showing the decision loop between step 606 of determining perturbed trajectory for the object, and step 610 of whether there are additional perturbed trajectories for the object <interpreted as at each set cycle; [0102]),
a distance from the lane marker defining the oncoming lane to a reference position of the oncoming moving body as a relative lane marker lateral position (see at least Silva, [0099]; disclosing that the state data may be determined using AI techniques within the components of the vehicle computing device(s) 504 to localize the vehicle 106, determine a distance and orientation between vehicles 102 and 106, segment sensor data, determine a classification of the vehicle 106, perceive and predict vehicle movements, and generate a planned path or trajectory for the vehicle 106; [0114] disclosing that the vehicle safety system 534 may determine a probability that the vehicle 106 will follow a particular trajectory in operation 806, based on the road configuration in the environment 100 (e.g., lane markings, median position, traffic lights and signs, crosswalks, etc.), along with the traffic laws, rules of the road, local driving etiquette, traffic patterns); ... (1) ... ;
identify a pattern of temporal change across the time points (see at least Silva, [0034] disclosing that the vehicle system safety may determine a projected path polygon or freeform corridor for each vehicle 102 and 106 based on their respective trajectories 104 and 112(3), and may perform a time-space overlap analysis within a potential collision zone determined based on the overlap of the path polygons (or corridors). For example, as described in more detail in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/136,038, entitled “Collision Prediction and Avoidance for Vehicles” filed Sep. 19, 2018, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, a potential collision zone between vehicles 102 and 106 may be based on the point(s) of intersection between trajectory 104 and trajectory 112(3), and one or more offset distances associated with vehicles 102 and 106. The vehicle safety system may determine the offset distances based on the lengths and/or widths of the vehicles 102 and 106 and also may apply a safety buffer or any other distance representative of a safe distance from the object (e.g., vehicle 106) at which the vehicle 102 will not collide. For instance, the vehicle safety system may calculate the offset distance(s) used to define the dimensions of potential collision zone, based on overlap of the projected movement corridor for vehicle 102 and the projected movement corridor for vehicle 106, wherein the measurements are performed for points before and after the intersection point 116 of the trajectories 104 and 112(3); [0039] ; [0042] ); ... (2) ... ; and ... (3) ... ;
a preliminary collision avoidance controller configured to recognize the oncoming moving body as the obstacle in accordance with the risk degree (see at least Silva, [0103] disclosing that when the vehicle safety system 534 determines that all of the perturbed trajectories associated with the vehicle 106 have been determined and analyzed (610:No), process 600 proceed to 612 to perform one or more collision predictions based on perturbed trajectories for the vehicle 106. In some examples, the vehicle safety system 534 may use a probabilistic approach, by determining multiple perturbed trajectories for the vehicle 106, analyzing each of the individual perturbed trajectories with respect to a potential collision with the vehicle 102, and then aggregating the results of the analyses to calculate the overall probability of a collision occurring; [0104] ; [0107]),
and perform preliminary collision avoidance control in response to the oncoming moving body recognized as the obstacle prior to the emergency collision avoidance control (see at least Silva, [0107]). The difference between the claimed invention and Silva, is that Silva does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kawakita, a comparable device where it is known to have:
(1) a risk degree calculator configured to evaluate variations in the relative lane marker lateral position of the oncoming moving body over a series of discrete time points corresponding to a predetermined number of consecutive set cycles (see at least Kawakita, [0044] disclosing that The static information Is used for calculating the base score E0 contains at least the number of lane change C as shown in FIG. 7 regardless of whether the planning start position S is the current position of the subject vehicle 3 or the position of the change node N. The number of lane change C is the number of times that the subject vehicle 3 crosses the lane marking until the subject vehicle 3 arrives at the optimal traveling lane at by the planning end position F from the traveling lane 4 indicated at the planning start position S);
(2) select a corresponding predefined score for each of a plurality of predefined sub- intervals based on the identified pattern (see at least Kawakita, Claim 8, disclosing selecting the traveling lane for the traveling path based on evaluation accumulated values each of which is calculated by accumulating the risk scores for each traveling lane, wherein in the estimating the risk score, a base score is estimated based on static information that is fixed in time as the risk score of a first one of the chronological sections in each traveling lane, the static information contains a traveling difficulty for the vehicle at a change node at which a lane arrangement changes on the future route, and in the estimating the risk score, the risk score is estimated such that the traveling risk is higher as the traveling difficulty is higher); and
(3) calculate a total risk degree as a sum of the selected predefined scores (see at least Kawakita, claim 8) ... .
Silva and Kawakita are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, to provide the benefit of having a risk degree calculator that evaluates variations in the relative lane marker lateral position of the oncoming moving body over a series of discrete time points corresponding to a predetermined number of consecutive set cycles, selecting a corresponding predefined score for each of a plurality of predefined sub- intervals based on the identified pattern, and calculating a total risk degree as a sum of the selected predefined scores, as disclosed in Kawakita, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one or ordinary skill.
As per claim 7, similar to claim 1, Goto discloses [a] vehicle driving assist device (see at least Silva, Abstract) comprising
one or more ECUs (see at least Silva, [0051] disclosing that the vehicle computing device(s) 504 may include one or more processors 516 and memory 518 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 516. In the illustrated example, the memory 518 of the vehicle computing device(s) 504 stores a localization component 520, a perception component 522, a planning component 524, a prediction component 526, one or more system controllers 528, and one or more maps 530) configured to:
recognize traveling environment information about a traveling environment outside a vehicle (see at least Silva, [0097]; [0098]);
recognize, based on the traveling environment information, an obstacle present on a traveling path of the vehicle (see at least Silva, [0099]; [0100]; [0101]);
wherein the traveling lane is separated from the oncoming lane by a lane marker (see at least Silva, Fig. 1, showing the traveling lane separated from the oncoming lane by the center line 114 <interpreted as a lane marker>; [0025]);
upon determination that the vehicle is highly likely to collide with the obstacle, perform emergency collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision of the vehicle with the obstacle (see at least Silva, [0107]);
perform emergency collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision of the vehicle with the obstacle (see at least Silva, [0103]; [0104]; [0107]);
recognize, based on the traveling information, an oncoming moving body moving in an oncoming lane adjacent to a traveling lane of the vehicle and having a velocity component in a direction opposite to a traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Silva, Fig. 1, Fig. 2A; [0033]);
calculate, at each set cycle, a distance from a lane marker defining the oncoming lane to a reference position of the oncoming moving body as a relative lane marker position (see at least Silva, [0099]; [0114]); ... (1) ... ;
identify a pattern of temporal change across the time points (see at least Silva, [0034]; [0039]; [0042] ); ... (2) ... ; and ... (3) ... ;
recognize the oncoming moving body as the obstacle in accordance with the risk degree (see at least Silva, [0103]; [0104] ; [0107]),
and perform preliminary collision avoidance control in response to the oncoming moving body recognized as the obstacle prior to the emergency collision avoidance control (see at least Silva, [0107]). The difference between the claimed invention and Silva, is that Silva does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kawakita, a comparable device where it is known to have:
(1) evaluate variations in the relative lane marker lateral position of the oncoming moving body over a series of discrete time points corresponding to a predetermined number of consecutive set cycles (see at least Kawakita, [0044]);
(2) select a corresponding predefined score for each of a plurality of predefined sub- intervals based on the identified pattern (see at least Kawakita, Claim 8,); and
(3) calculate a total risk degree as a sum of the selected predefined scores (see at least Kawakita, claim 8) ... .
Silva and Kawakita are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, to provide the benefit of having a risk degree calculator that evaluates variations in the relative lane marker lateral position of the oncoming moving body over a series of discrete time points corresponding to a predetermined number of consecutive set cycles, selecting a corresponding predefined score for each of a plurality of predefined sub- intervals based on the identified pattern, and calculating a total risk degree as a sum of the selected predefined scores, as disclosed in Kawakita, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one or ordinary skill.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva and Kawakita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0088136 to Nagata et al (hereafter Nagata).
As per claim 3, the combination Silva and Kawakita teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Siva nor Kawakita explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Nagata a comparable device where it is known to:
wherein the risk degree calculator is configured to perform upper limit processing in which a preset value is set as an upper limit of the risk degree (see at least Nagata, [0075] disclosing that Fig. 4 is a diagram illustrating determination of a risk based on comparison between a risk-determination lateral position and a threshold range thereof. In FIG. 4, a risk-determination lateral position 61 and a threshold range 66 thereof along with a stopped vehicle 70 and a pedestrian 60 are illustrated. The threshold range of the risk-determination lateral position is expressed by an upper limit and a lower limit of an X coordinate in the stationary object coordinate system. The risk determining unit 14 compares the risk-determination lateral position 61 with the threshold range 66 thereof and sets a second flag when the risk-determination lateral position 61 enters the threshold range 66, that is, when the risk-determination lateral position 61 enters a range between the upper limit and the lower limit <interpreted as the upper and lower limits of the risk degree>; [0076] disclosing that Fig. 5 is a diagram illustrating determination of a risk based on comparison between a risk-determination lateral collision position and a threshold range thereof. In FIG. 5, a risk-determination lateral collision position 62 and a threshold range 67 thereof along with a stopped vehicle 70 and a pedestrian 60 are illustrated. The threshold range of the risk-determination lateral collision position is expressed by an upper limit and a lower limit of an X coordinate in the stationary object coordinate system; [0132]).
Silva, Kawakita and Nagata are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]). Nagata relates to a vehicle control system that recognizes at least one object and determines a risk of the at least one object entering a course of the host vehicle (see at least Nagata, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, as modified by Kawakita, to provide the benefit of, performing upper limit processing in which a preset value is set as an upper limit of the risk degree, as taught in Nagata, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one or ordinary skill.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva and Kawakita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2015/0298692 to Minemura et al. (hereafter Minemura).
As per claim 4, the combination of Silva and Kawakita teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Silva nor Kawakita explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Minemura a comparable device where it is known to:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller is configured to vary a control level permitted for the preliminary collision avoidance control based on a relative distance and a relative velocity of the vehicle to the oncoming moving body in a front-rear direction (see at least Minemura, [0035] disclosing that based on the TTC that is estimated for a target object, the driving support apparatus 10 controls the controlled devices 30 to determine the respective TTC operation timings, at which various types of driving support will be commenced, for avoiding collision with the target object, i.e., the timings for actuating the vehicle brakes, intervening in the steering operations being performed by the vehicle driver, tensioning the seat belts, emitting warning signals directed to the driver, etc.; [0038] disclosing that each TTC operation timing (e.g., for commencement of braking intervention) is determined based on the relative speed and relative position of the target object with respect to the host vehicle, the type of object, the running environment of the host vehicle).
Silva, Kawakita and Minemura are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]). Minemura relates to a driving support apparatus for installation in a motor vehicle, for assisting the vehicle driver in avoiding collision (see Minemura, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, as modified by Kawakita, to provide the benefit of varying a control level permitted for the preliminary collision avoidance control based on a relative distance and a relative velocity of the vehicle to the oncoming moving body in a front-rear direction, as taught in Minemura, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one or ordinary skill.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Kawakita and Nagata as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Minemura.
As per claim 6, similar to claim 4, the combination of Silva, Kawakita and Nagata discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, as shown above. But, neither Silva, Kawakita nor Nagata explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Minemura a comparable device where it is known to:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller is configured to vary a control level permitted for the preliminary collision avoidance control based on a relative distance and a relative velocity of the vehicle to the oncoming moving body in a front-rear direction (see at least see at least Minemura, [0035]; [0038]).
Silva, Kawakita, Nagata and Minemura are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]). Nagata relates to a vehicle control system that recognizes at least one object and determines a risk of the at least one object entering a course of the host vehicle (see at least Nagata, Abstract). Minemura relates to a driving support apparatus for installation in a motor vehicle, for assisting the vehicle driver in avoiding collision (see Minemura, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, as modified by Kawakita and Nagata, to provide the benefit of varying a control level permitted for the preliminary collision avoidance control based on a relative distance and a relative velocity of the vehicle to the oncoming moving body in a front-rear direction, as disclosed in Minemura, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predicable to one or ordinary skill.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva and Kawakita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0154892 to Tamura et al. (hereafter Tamura) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 20240174203 to Wang et al. (hereafter Wang).
As per claim 8, the combination of Silva and Kawakita discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Sliva nor Kawakita, explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tamura:
wherein behavior of the oncoming moving body includes: a first behavior in which the oncoming moving body moves, in a lane width direction, closer to the vehicle from a position of the oncoming moving body in a previous set cycle (see at least Tamura, [0047] disclosing that as shown in FIG. 5(b), if the oncoming vehicle M3 were to move away from the host vehicle M1 in a direction A4 <interpreted as a third behavior>, the risk of collision would be reduced. However if the oncoming vehicle M3 were to move closer to the host vehicle M1 in a direction A5, the risk of collision would be increased <interpreted as a first behavior> <first behavior based on this disclosure is simply no change in the oncoming vehicle relative to the host vehicle>; [0048]);
a second behavior in which the oncoming moving body maintains, in the lane width direction, the position of the oncoming moving body in the previous set cycle (see at least Tamura, [0047] <interpreting lack of movement of the oncoming vehicle as the second behavior>), and
a third behavior in which the oncoming moving body moves, in the lane width direction, away from the vehicle from the position of the oncoming moving body in the previous set cycle (see at least Tamura, [0047]), ... (1) ... ,
wherein, in each set cycle constituting each behavior pattern, the behavior of the oncoming moving body is classified as one of the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior (see at least Tamura, [0047]), ... (2) ... ,
wherein the risk degree calculator is further configured to: determine the behavior of the oncoming moving body in each set cycle based on the variations in the relative lane marker lateral position over two consecutive set cycles (see at least Tamura, [0040] disclosing that In FIG. 3, the horizontal axis expresses values of TTC (Time to Collision), corresponding to the time that will elapse until the host vehicle collides with an object such as the preceding vehicle M2, etc., that is ahead of the host vehicle <interpreted as a cycle>. The TTC is an evaluation value, expressing the number of seconds that will elapse until the host vehicle collision, if the host vehicle speed Vs were to be maintained unchanged, and normally, the smaller the value of the TTC, the higher is the risk of collision (right side of FIG. 3), while the greater the value of the TTC, the lower is the risk of collision (left side of FIG. 3); [0041] disclosing that In FIG. 3, the horizontal axis expresses values of TTC (Time to Collision), corresponding to the time that will elapse until the host vehicle collides with an object such as the preceding vehicle M2, etc., that is ahead of the host vehicle. The TTC is an evaluation value, expressing the number of seconds that will elapse until the host vehicle collision, if the host vehicle speed Vs were to be maintained unchanged, and normally, the smaller the value of the TTC, the higher is the risk of collision (right side of FIG. 3), while the greater the value of the TTC, the lower is the risk of collision (left side of FIG. 3); [0047]; [0048]); and
determine, using the determined behavior of the oncoming moving body in each set cycle, the risk degree for the oncoming moving body over the predetermined number of consecutive set cycles based on the total value derived from the values assigned to the respective set cycles in the first information (see at least Tamura, [0029]; [0030]; [0040]; [0041]). But, neither Silva, Kawakita nor Tamura explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Wang:
(1) wherein the risk degree calculator has first information including: values representing risk levels assigned to the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior; and behavior patterns obtained by classifying the behavior of the oncoming moving body over the predetermined number of consecutive set cycles (see at least Wang, [0035]; [0067] disclosing that in the automatic emergency braking device 12 according to the first embodiment, the execution timing change unit 15 changes the execution timing of the collision determination by changing a threshold for distinguishing whether or not the vehicle 1 enters the opposite lane. The setting unit 17 sets a first threshold as a threshold in the collision determination unit 13 when the prediction condition is not satisfied, and sets a second threshold that is easier to distinguish when the vehicle 1 enters the opposite lane than the first threshold as a threshold in the collision determination unit 13 when the prediction condition is satisfied. The collision determination unit 13 determines whether or not an entry condition indicating that the vehicle 1 enters the opposite lane is satisfied based on the threshold set by the setting unit 17. The collision determination unit 13 executes the collision determination when the entry condition is satisfied, and suspends execution of the collision determination when the entry condition is not satisfied <thresholds are interpreted as risk values>),
wherein each set cycle is assigned a value based on classified one of the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior, wherein each behavior pattern is assigned a total value derived from the values assigned to the respective set cycles (see at least Wang, [0067]) ... .
Silva, Kawakita, Tamura and Wang are analogous art to claim 8 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]). Tamura relates to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method which outputs warnings for preventing collisions between a host vehicle and an object (see at least Tamura, [0002]). Wang relates to an automatic emergency braking device that includes a collision determination unit 13 that executes collision determination for determining whether or not there is a possibility of collision between the vehicle and an oncoming vehicle (see at least Wang, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, as modified by Kawakita, to provide the benefit of, having the behavior of the oncoming moving body include a first behavior in which the oncoming moving body moves, in a lane width direction, closer to the vehicle from a position of the oncoming moving body in a previous set cycle, a second behavior in which the oncoming moving body maintains, in the lane width direction, the position of the oncoming moving body in the previous set cycle, a third behavior in which the oncoming moving body moves, in the lane width direction, away from the vehicle from the position of the oncoming moving body in the previous set cycle, where in each set cycle constituting each behavior pattern, the behavior of the oncoming moving body is classified as one of the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior, determining the behavior of the oncoming moving body in each set cycle based on the variations in the relative lane marker lateral position over two consecutive set cycles, and determining, using the determined behavior of the oncoming moving body in each set cycle, the risk degree for the oncoming moving body over the predetermined number of consecutive set cycles based on the total value derived from the values assigned to the respective set cycles in the first information, as disclosed in Tamura, with a reasonable expectation of success, and having values representing risk levels assigned to the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior, where the behavior patterns obtained by classifying the behavior of the oncoming moving body over the predetermined number of consecutive set cycles, and each set cycle be assigned a value based on classified one of the first behavior, the second behavior, and the third behavior, as taught in Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of tailoring the timing of braking in the event of a collision based on the possibility of the collision occurring (see at least Wang, [0008]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura and Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Tamura further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the risk degree calculator is configured to reduce the risk degree upon determining that the behavior of the oncoming moving body is identifiable as not moving toward the vehicle (see at least Tamura, [0047]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva, Kawakita, Tamura and Wang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Minemura.
As per claim 10, the combination of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura and Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Wang further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller has second information setting information ... the setting information being defined for each different risk degree (see at least Wang, [0027] disclosing that the collision determination unit 13 executes entry determination to determine whether or not an entry condition indicating that the vehicle 1 enters the opposite lane is satisfied, on the basis of the acquired steering angle, yaw angle, or the like of the vehicle 1. When the entry condition is satisfied, the collision determination unit 13 executes the collision determination on the basis of the acquired estimated course of the vehicle 1, the relative distance to the oncoming vehicle, and the relative speed. Details of the collision determination will be described later with reference to FIG. 3; [0035]; [0036]; [0037] ... steering ... [0041]; [0040]; [0043]), and
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller is configured to perform the preliminary collision avoidance control based on the setting information corresponding to the determined risk degree (see at least Wang, [0068]; [0071] ).
But, neither Silva, Kawakita, Tamura nor Wang explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Minemura:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller has second information including setting information for brake operation and steering operation for performing the preliminary collision avoidance control (see at least Minemura, [0079] disclosing that in setting a compensation amount of retardation of the TTC operation timing, it would be possible to set the compensation amount irrespective of the type of driving support (i.e., emission of warning indications, braking intervention, etc.) that is to be executed. Alternatively, the compensation amount could be in accordance with the type of driving support that is to be executed (i.e., when respectively different TTC operation timings are applied to the commencement of braking intervention, the commencement of steering intervention, etc.). In the latter case, it is preferable to set a larger value of compensation amount of TTC operation timing retardation for the emission of warning indications, than for the execution of braking intervention) ... .
Silva, Kawakita, Tamura, Wang and Minemura are analogous art to claim 10 because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assist devices having a function of performing collision avoidance control in response to an obstacle. Silva relates to a vehicle safety system within an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that predicts and avoid collisions between the vehicle and other moving objects in the environment (see Silva, Abstract). Kawakita relates to a path planning technique for planning a traveling path in a future route of a vehicle (see Kawakita, [0002]). Tamura relates to a vehicle control apparatus and a vehicle control method which outputs warnings for preventing collisions between a host vehicle and an object (see at least Tamura, [0002]). Wang relates to an automatic emergency braking device that includes a collision determination unit 13 that executes collision determination for determining whether or not there is a possibility of collision between the vehicle and an oncoming vehicle (see at least Wang, Abstract). Minemura relates to a driving support apparatus for installation in a motor vehicle, for assisting the vehicle driver in avoiding collision (see Minemura, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle driving assist device, as disclosed in Silva, as modified by Kawakita, and further modified by Tamura and Wang, to provide the benefit of, having the preliminary collision avoidance controller has second information including setting information for brake operation and steering operation for performing the preliminary collision avoidance control, as taught in Minemura, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of determining the appropriate time to commence driving support (see Minemura, [0009]).
As per claim 11, the combination of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura, Wang and Minemura discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Tamura further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller is configured to: reduce the risk degree based on a relative distance and a relative velocity of the vehicle to the oncoming moving body (see at least Tamura, [0030]; [0032] disclosing that to the distance and relative speed of an object with respect to the advancement direction of the host vehicle, and lateral position information expressing the position of the object in the width direction of the host vehicle, the image object GT includes information on the lateral position of an object; [0076] disclosing that the vehicle control section 19 calculates the TTC (Time To Collision) based on the relative position and relative speed of a preceding vehicle, etc., with respect to the host vehicle. When the TTC corresponds to the output timing of the PRE collision warning that is set by the collision warning setting section 18, an operation command is outputted to the warning device 40; [0047]) ... . Minemura further discloses the following limitation:
perform the preliminary collision avoidance control based on based on the setting information corresponding to the reduced risk degree (see at least Minemura, [0035]; [0038] disclosing that driving support apparatus 10 is configured to apply compensation for retarding the TTC operation timing when the reliability of the detection results obtained for the target object from the camera apparatus 20 and the radar apparatus 22 for the target object, etc. is judged to be below a predetermined level. Furthermore with this embodiment, the driving support apparatus 10 compensates the TTC operation timing based on a lane marker line overlap ratio (described hereinafter) and motion status of the target object).
As per claim 12, the combination of Silva, Kawakita, Tamura, Wang and Minemura discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Tamura further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the preliminary collision avoidance controller is configured to: increase the risk degree upon determining that the behavior of the oncoming moving body is identifiable as moving toward the vehicle (see at least Tamura, [0047]) ... . Minemura further discloses the following limitation:
perform the preliminary collision avoidance control based on based on the setting information corresponding to the increased risk degree (see at least Minemura, [0035]; [0038])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666