DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 01/29/2026 with respect to previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive.
With respect to the newly amended subject matter and applicant’s arguments, the Examiner relies upon newly cited reference Fujita (US 2023/0135893 A1).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim (US 2024/0051525 A1) in further view Fujita (US 2023/0135893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus for controlling biased driving of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: (see Kim para “0010” “provide an avoidance path based on a position of the lane line marker in response to the distance between the front object and the lane line marker that is less than the first reference distance, and control the vehicle to travel along the avoidance path”),
a first sensor configured to detect an obstacle on a road on which the vehicle drives (see Kim paras “0050” and “0067-0069” “The processor 141 may perform a sensor fusion to fuse the image data, the radar data, and/or the lidar data to detect the objects around the vehicle 1. Hereafter, data related to the objects (e.g., a lane, a building, a transportation infrastructure, another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, etc.) provided using the sensor fusion is referred to as “object data””),
a second sensor configured to capture a surrounding image of the obstacle (see Kim para “0049” “The camera 110 may photograph the surroundings of the vehicle 1 and obtain image data of the surroundings of the vehicle 1. For example, the camera 110 may be mounted on a front windshield of the vehicle 1, as illustrated in FIG. 2, and may have a field of view 110a facing the front of the vehicle 1”),
and a controller electrically connected to the first sensor and the second sensor (see Kim paras “0050” and “0067-0069” “The processor 141 may perform a sensor fusion to fuse the image data, the radar data, and/or the lidar data to detect the objects around the vehicle 1. Hereafter, data related to the objects (e.g., a lane, a building, a transportation infrastructure, another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, etc.) provided using the sensor fusion is referred to as “object data””),
and control the vehicle to overtake the obstacle at the overtaking speed based on the vehicle travelling biased in a lane of the road due to the obstacle (see Kim fig 4 and paras “0083-0093” “The processor 141 may identify that there is a risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and the front object 2 when the front object 2 overlaps the vehicle 1, and may identify whether the vehicle 1 is able to overtake the front object 2 without departing the lane” and “the processor 141 may control the braking device 30 of the vehicle 1 to decelerate to the first speed greater than a speed of the front object 2 in order to overtake the front object 2” regarding generating a passing path P1 or P2 that passes to the left or right of the object as shown in figure 4 and control braking and steering to follow that path while shifting laterally within the lane).
But Kim fails to explicitly teach configured to determine an overtaking speed based on a lane encroachment amount of the obstacle and at least one of a speed of the obstacle, or a lateral separation distance from the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches determine an overtaking speed based on a lane encroachment amount of the obstacle and at least one of a speed of the obstacle, or a lateral separation distance from the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine the overtaking speed applied in an overtaking section including a start point and an end point of overtaking for the obstacle (see Kim paras “0090-0093” “When the vehicle 1 is able to avoid the front object 2 to the left of the front object 2 (YES in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 may generate a path that passes through the left of the front object 2”, “The processor 141 may generate a passing path P1 that passes through the left of the front object 2 when the lateral distance d is greater than the width W1 of the vehicle 1… Further, the processor 141 may generate an extension path P2 that extends from the current position of the vehicle 1 to the passing path P1 using a cubic equation” and “the driver assistance apparatus 100 may control the vehicle 1 to decelerate to the first speed that is greater than the speed of the front object” regarding determining and applying an overtaking speed along defined overtaking section extending from vehicle’s current position (i.e., start) along an extension path P2 to the passing path P1 (i.e., end) that clears the obstacle and also the controller controls deceleration to a first speed greater than the obstacle’s speed while traversing that section as shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a method of controlling biased driving of a vehicle, the method comprising: (see Kim para “0010” “provide an avoidance path based on a position of the lane line marker in response to the distance between the front object and the lane line marker that is less than the first reference distance, and control the vehicle to travel along the avoidance path”),
detecting, by a first sensor, an obstacle on a road on which the vehicle drives (see Kim paras “0050” and “0067-0069” “The processor 141 may perform a sensor fusion to fuse the image data, the radar data, and/or the lidar data to detect the objects around the vehicle 1. Hereafter, data related to the objects (e.g., a lane, a building, a transportation infrastructure, another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, etc.) provided using the sensor fusion is referred to as “object data””),
capturing, by a second sensor, a surrounding image of the obstacle (see Kim para “0049” “The camera 110 may photograph the surroundings of the vehicle 1 and obtain image data of the surroundings of the vehicle 1. For example, the camera 110 may be mounted on a front windshield of the vehicle 1, as illustrated in FIG. 2, and may have a field of view 110a facing the front of the vehicle 1”),
determining, by a controller connected to the first sensor and the second sensor, (see Kim paras “0050” and “0067-0069” “The processor 141 may perform a sensor fusion to fuse the image data, the radar data, and/or the lidar data to detect the objects around the vehicle 1. Hereafter, data related to the objects (e.g., a lane, a building, a transportation infrastructure, another vehicle, a pedestrian, a cyclist, etc.) provided using the sensor fusion is referred to as “object data””),
and controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to overtake the obstacle at the overtaking speed (see Kim fig 4 and paras “0083-0093” “The processor 141 may identify that there is a risk of collision between the vehicle 1 and the front object 2 when the front object 2 overlaps the vehicle 1, and may identify whether the vehicle 1 is able to overtake the front object 2 without departing the lane” and “the processor 141 may control the braking device 30 of the vehicle 1 to decelerate to the first speed greater than a speed of the front object 2 in order to overtake the front object 2” regarding generating a passing path P1 or P2 that passes to the left or right of the object as shown in figure 4 and control braking and steering to follow that path while shifting laterally within the lane).
But Kim fails to explicitly teach an overtaking speed based on a lane encroachment amount of the obstacle and at least one of a speed of the obstacle, or a lateral separation distance from the obstacle based on the vehicle travelling biased in a lane of the road due to the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches an overtaking speed based on a lane encroachment amount of the obstacle and at least one of a speed of the obstacle, or a lateral separation distance from the obstacle based on the vehicle travelling biased in a lane of the road due to the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed applied in an overtaking section including a start point and an end point of overtaking for the obstacle (see Kim paras “0090-0093” “When the vehicle 1 is able to avoid the front object 2 to the left of the front object 2 (YES in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 may generate a path that passes through the left of the front object 2”, “The processor 141 may generate a passing path P1 that passes through the left of the front object 2 when the lateral distance d is greater than the width W1 of the vehicle 1… Further, the processor 141 may generate an extension path P2 that extends from the current position of the vehicle 1 to the passing path P1 using a cubic equation” and “the driver assistance apparatus 100 may control the vehicle 1 to decelerate to the first speed that is greater than the speed of the front object” regarding determining and applying an overtaking speed along defined overtaking section extending from vehicle’s current position (i.e., start) along an extension path P2 to the passing path P1 (i.e., end) that clears the obstacle and also the controller controls deceleration to a first speed greater than the obstacle’s speed while traversing that section as shown in figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Claims 4-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Kim (US 2024/0051525 A1) in further view Fujita (US 2023/0135893 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view Ohmura (US 2021/0046928 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim fails to explicitly teach determine a weight corresponding to the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches determine a weight corresponding to the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Modified Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle, and determine the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0086”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1”),
and determine the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle (see Ohmura paras “0048”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m” regarding scaling the safe speed up toward a preset maximum as the lane encroachment decreases).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086] - [0109-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 5, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0110” “when the vehicle 1 is traveling at a certain absolute speed, the permissible upper limit V.sub.lim, set in the lateral direction of the obstacle is kept at zero km/h when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0 (safe distance), and then quadratically increases when a clearance X becomes equal to or greater than D.sub.0 (V.sub.lim=k (X−D.sub.0).sup.2, where X≥D.sub.0). That is, when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 becomes zero so as to ensure safety”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4. Ka=k.sub.6×(Vp−Vc)+k.sub.7 (where Ka≥0)” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1. Further, each of the coefficients k.sub.6, k.sub.7 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.6=1, and k.sub.7=20 (m)). Further, when Vc>Vp, and thereby Ka<0, Ka is set to 0”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0050] - [0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 6, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0096”, “0106” and “0110” “The rear boundary line 44B is set at a position away from the rear boundary line 42B rearwardly by a given rearward distance Kb. The given rearward distance Kb is determined by the following formula 5. Kb=(THW or TTC)×Vc+k.sub.8.” and “In the formula (5), THW is an abbreviation for time headway. Further, TTC is an abbreviation for time-to-collision, and is a value obtained by dividing an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 3 by the relative speed of the vehicle 1 with respect to the preceding vehicle 3. In this embodiment, with regard to the term (THW or TTC), a larger one of the time headway and the time-to-collision is taken. Further, the coefficient k.sub.8 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.8=2 (m))” regarding when Vc>Vp the controller uses this second formula to set new safe limit speed (i.e., second speed)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0093-0096]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 7, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed (see Ohmura paras “0106-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m, in the situation where the visibility is good (FIG. 7), whereas, in the situation where the visibility is poor (FIG. 8), the vehicle 1 has to pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is about 2.24 m”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0106-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance and speed between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 8, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lateral separation distance from the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lateral separation distance from the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0057-0059”, “0083-0086” and “0097” “the ECU 10 operates to correct a target traveling course. The target traveling course (including target positions and a target speed) is calculated by the ECU 10, at time intervals of a given cycle time (e.g., 0.1 to 0.3 sec). For example, the target traveling course is set to cause the vehicle 1 to travel along widthwise middle positions of the traveling road 7 at a given speed (user setup speed, traffic sign-designated speed or the like)”, “FIG. 2 shows a case where a calculated target traveling course R is set to cause the vehicle 1 to travel along the widthwise middle positions of the traveling road 7 (target positions) at 60 km/h (target speed)” and “Each of the lateral boundary lines 44C is set at a position away from a corresponding one of the lateral boundary lines 42C laterally by a given lateral distance Kc. The given lateral distance Kc is determined by the following formula 6”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to allow a clearance (lateral distance) between the vehicle and the object needs to be greater than at least a given distance which allows avoidance of a collision and contact therebetween” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 9, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle, determine a weight corresponding to the lateral separation distance from the obstacle, and determine the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0086”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1”),
determine a weight corresponding to the lateral separation distance from the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0087”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Ma denotes a safety margin (m), and Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3 (the absolute vehicle speed in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1). Further, k.sub.1 denotes a speed coefficient, and k.sub.2 denotes a distance coefficient. The safety margin Ma includes a speed element term (k.sub.1Vp) and a distance element term (k.sub.2). The speed coefficient k.sub.1 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.1=0.5), and the distance coefficient k.sub.2 is set according to the category of the object (e.g., when the object is categorized as vehicle, k.sub.2 is set to 5 (m))” regarding that the (lane encroachment amount) is determined by lateral distance coefficients (k4, k5, k9) and safety margins (Ma, Mb, Mc) that weight the permissible speed according to the lateral distance),
and determine the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle (see Ohmura paras “0048”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m” regarding scaling the safe speed up toward a preset maximum as the lane encroachment decreases),
and wherein the weight corresponding to the lateral separation distance from the obstacle is determined further based on whether the obstacle is a moving obstacle or a stationary obstacle (see Ohmura at least paras “0033” and “0044”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086] - [0109-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 10, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0110” “when the vehicle 1 is traveling at a certain absolute speed, the permissible upper limit V.sub.lim, set in the lateral direction of the obstacle is kept at zero km/h when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0 (safe distance), and then quadratically increases when a clearance X becomes equal to or greater than D.sub.0 (V.sub.lim=k (X−D.sub.0).sup.2, where X≥D.sub.0). That is, when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 becomes zero so as to ensure safety”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4. Ka=k.sub.6×(Vp−Vc)+k.sub.7 (where Ka≥0)” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1. Further, each of the coefficients k.sub.6, k.sub.7 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.6=1, and k.sub.7=20 (m)). Further, when Vc>Vp, and thereby Ka<0, Ka is set to 0”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0050] - [0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 11, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0096”, “0106” and “0110” “The rear boundary line 44B is set at a position away from the rear boundary line 42B rearwardly by a given rearward distance Kb. The given rearward distance Kb is determined by the following formula 5. Kb=(THW or TTC)×Vc+k.sub.8.” and “In the formula (5), THW is an abbreviation for time headway. Further, TTC is an abbreviation for time-to-collision, and is a value obtained by dividing an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 3 by the relative speed of the vehicle 1 with respect to the preceding vehicle 3. In this embodiment, with regard to the term (THW or TTC), a larger one of the time headway and the time-to-collision is taken. Further, the coefficient k.sub.8 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.8=2 (m))” regarding when Vc>Vp the controller uses this second formula to set new safe limit speed (i.e., second speed)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0093-0096]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 12, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to determine the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed (see Ohmura paras “0106-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m, in the situation where the visibility is good (FIG. 7), whereas, in the situation where the visibility is poor (FIG. 8), the vehicle 1 has to pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is about 2.24 m”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0106-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance and speed between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 16, Kim fails to explicitly teach a weight corresponding to the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle.
However, Fujita teaches a weight corresponding to the lane encroachment amount of the obstacle (see Fujita figures 3 and 4 and paras “0061”, “0079-0082”, “0087” and “0110-0117” “As shown in Case 1 of FIG. 3 , in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy of the object OB is sufficiently larger (that is, in a case where lateral margin distance Wy>first distance threshold value WUth), most of the drivers of the host vehicle SV pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls. That is, for example, in a case where the object OB is positioned on the left side of the travel lane Ls and the lateral margin distance Wy is sufficiently large, as shown by a solid line L1 in Case 1 of FIG. 4” and “in a case where the lateral margin distance Wy is larger than the deviation passage determination upper limit value WUth, a large number of drivers cause the host vehicle SV to pass by the side of the object OB without causing the host vehicle SV to deviate from the travel lane Ls (see Case 1 of FIG. 3 and Case 1 of FIG. 4 ).”, “the CPU calculates an absolute speed Vz of the target object” and “in a case where the target object of which the absolute speed Vz is within the speed range described above is present, the CPU determines “Yes” in step S540 and proceeds to step S550.” regarding controlling the overtaking speed based on the target object speed (i.e., obstacle) and the lateral margin distance of the obstacle on the road (i.e., lane encroachment) to decide whether to pass the obstacle (e.g., the overtaking speed as the vehicle speed up to overtake the obstacle or the preceding vehicle) or no based on the lateral margin distance and whether the vehicle will deviate from the lane as shown in fig. 4 “Case 1”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to determine the overtaking speed further based on the lateral margin distance” as taught by Fujita (paras. [0079-0081] - [0110-0117]) in order to improve safety and ensure an appropriate clearance when passing the obstacle.
Modified Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle; determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0086”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1”),
and determine the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle (see Ohmura paras “0048”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m” regarding scaling the safe speed up toward a preset maximum as the lane encroachment decreases).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086] - [0109-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the safe speed includes: determining, by the controller, a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle; determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle; and determining, by the controller, the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the determining of the safe speed includes: determining, by the controller, a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0110” “when the vehicle 1 is traveling at a certain absolute speed, the permissible upper limit V.sub.lim, set in the lateral direction of the obstacle is kept at zero km/h when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0 (safe distance), and then quadratically increases when a clearance X becomes equal to or greater than D.sub.0 (V.sub.lim=k (X−D.sub.0).sup.2, where X≥D.sub.0). That is, when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 becomes zero so as to ensure safety”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4. Ka=k.sub.6×(Vp−Vc)+k.sub.7 (where Ka≥0)” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1. Further, each of the coefficients k.sub.6, k.sub.7 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.6=1, and k.sub.7=20 (m)). Further, when Vc>Vp, and thereby Ka<0, Ka is set to 0”).
determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0096”, “0106” and “0110” “The rear boundary line 44B is set at a position away from the rear boundary line 42B rearwardly by a given rearward distance Kb. The given rearward distance Kb is determined by the following formula 5. Kb=(THW or TTC)×Vc+k.sub.8.” and “In the formula (5), THW is an abbreviation for time headway. Further, TTC is an abbreviation for time-to-collision, and is a value obtained by dividing an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 3 by the relative speed of the vehicle 1 with respect to the preceding vehicle 3. In this embodiment, with regard to the term (THW or TTC), a larger one of the time headway and the time-to-collision is taken. Further, the coefficient k.sub.8 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.8=2 (m))” regarding when Vc>Vp the controller uses this second formula to set new safe limit speed (i.e., second speed)).
determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0106-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m, in the situation where the visibility is good (FIG. 7), whereas, in the situation where the visibility is poor (FIG. 8), the vehicle 1 has to pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is about 2.24 m”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0106-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance and speed between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 18, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lateral separation distance from the obstacle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed based on the speed of the obstacle and the lateral separation distance from the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0057-0059”, “0083-0086” and “0097” “the ECU 10 operates to correct a target traveling course. The target traveling course (including target positions and a target speed) is calculated by the ECU 10, at time intervals of a given cycle time (e.g., 0.1 to 0.3 sec). For example, the target traveling course is set to cause the vehicle 1 to travel along widthwise middle positions of the traveling road 7 at a given speed (user setup speed, traffic sign-designated speed or the like)”, “FIG. 2 shows a case where a calculated target traveling course R is set to cause the vehicle 1 to travel along the widthwise middle positions of the traveling road 7 (target positions) at 60 km/h (target speed)” and “Each of the lateral boundary lines 44C is set at a position away from a corresponding one of the lateral boundary lines 42C laterally by a given lateral distance Kc. The given lateral distance Kc is determined by the following formula 6”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to allow a clearance (lateral distance) between the vehicle and the object needs to be greater than at least a given distance which allows avoidance of a collision and contact therebetween” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 19, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle; determining, by the controller, a weight corresponding to the lateral separation distance from the obstacle; and determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the determining of the overtaking speed includes: determining, by the controller, a safe speed based on a current speed of the vehicle and the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0086”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1”),
determining, by the controller, a weight corresponding to the lateral separation distance from the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0083-0087”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “Ma denotes a safety margin (m), and Vp denotes a traveling speed (m/s) of the preceding vehicle 3 (the absolute vehicle speed in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1). Further, k.sub.1 denotes a speed coefficient, and k.sub.2 denotes a distance coefficient. The safety margin Ma includes a speed element term (k.sub.1Vp) and a distance element term (k.sub.2). The speed coefficient k.sub.1 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.1=0.5), and the distance coefficient k.sub.2 is set according to the category of the object (e.g., when the object is categorized as vehicle, k.sub.2 is set to 5 (m))” regarding that the (lane encroachment amount) is determined by lateral distance coefficients (k4, k5, k9) and safety margins (Ma, Mb, Mc) that weight the permissible speed according to the lateral distance),
and determining, by the controller, the overtaking speed by applying the weight to the safe speed and a preset maximum speed of the vehicle (see Ohmura paras “0048”, “0106” and “0109-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m” regarding scaling the safe speed up toward a preset maximum as the lane encroachment decreases).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0083-0086] - [0109-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Regarding claim 20, Kim fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the safe speed includes: determining, by the controller, a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle; determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle; and determining, by the controller, the current speed of the vehicle as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed and less than or equal to the second speed.
However, Ohmura teaches wherein the determining of the safe speed includes: determining, by the controller, a first speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle does not exceed the first speed obtained by adding a first reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0095”, “0106” and “0110” “when the vehicle 1 is traveling at a certain absolute speed, the permissible upper limit V.sub.lim, set in the lateral direction of the obstacle is kept at zero km/h when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0 (safe distance), and then quadratically increases when a clearance X becomes equal to or greater than D.sub.0 (V.sub.lim=k (X−D.sub.0).sup.2, where X≥D.sub.0). That is, when the clearance X is less than D.sub.0, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 becomes zero so as to ensure safety”, “The front boundary line 44A is set at a position away from the front boundary line 42A forwardly by a given forward distance Ka. The given forward distance Ka is determined by the following formula 4. Ka=k.sub.6×(Vp−Vc)+k.sub.7 (where Ka≥0)” and “Vc denotes a traveling speed (absolute traveling speed) of the vehicle 1. Further, each of the coefficients k.sub.6, k.sub.7 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.6=1, and k.sub.7=20 (m)). Further, when Vc>Vp, and thereby Ka<0, Ka is set to 0”).
determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0050”, “0093-0096”, “0106” and “0110” “The rear boundary line 44B is set at a position away from the rear boundary line 42B rearwardly by a given rearward distance Kb. The given rearward distance Kb is determined by the following formula 5. Kb=(THW or TTC)×Vc+k.sub.8.” and “In the formula (5), THW is an abbreviation for time headway. Further, TTC is an abbreviation for time-to-collision, and is a value obtained by dividing an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 3 by the relative speed of the vehicle 1 with respect to the preceding vehicle 3. In this embodiment, with regard to the term (THW or TTC), a larger one of the time headway and the time-to-collision is taken. Further, the coefficient k.sub.8 is a constant (e.g., k.sub.8=2 (m))” regarding when Vc>Vp the controller uses this second formula to set new safe limit speed (i.e., second speed)).
determining, by the controller, a second speed as the safe speed based on determining that the current speed of the vehicle exceeds the second speed obtained by adding a second reference speed to the speed of the obstacle (see Ohmura paras “0106-0110” “the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 8 km/h (V.sub.lim=8) at the lateral permissible distance of 1 m (X−D.sub.0=1), and the permissible upper limit of the relative speed is 32 km/h (V.sub.lim=32) at the lateral permissible distance of 2 m (X−D.sub.0=2). A value of the lateral permissible distance at which the permissible upper limit of the relative speed becomes 40 km/h (V.sub.lim=40) is about 2.24 m (X−D.sub.0≈2.24)” and “when the vehicle 1 overtakes the object at a relative speed of 40 km/h, the vehicle 1 can pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is 2 m, in the situation where the visibility is good (FIG. 7), whereas, in the situation where the visibility is poor (FIG. 8), the vehicle 1 has to pass by a position where the lateral permissible distance is about 2.24 m”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim for apparatus for driver assistance and method for driver assistance “to prevent a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object from exceeding the upper-limit relative speed in the speed distribution area” as taught by Ohmura (paras. [0106-0110]) in order to ensure at least the safe distance and speed between the vehicle and the object, thereby avoiding a collision or contact with the object.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABDELLATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights