DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “controlling a motor vehicle… is driven in a nominal mode” in the first two lines. The language of “nominal” appears to insinuate nothing in particular. The language may be redundant or unnecessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the computer" in lines 13 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surroundings" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steering" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160001775 (“Wilhelm”) and alternatively in further view of US 20120283927 (“Reinisch”).
As per claim 1 Wilhelm discloses a method for controlling a motor vehicle comprising, when the motor vehicle is driven in a nominal mode, steps of [Fig. 1]:
determining an initial trajectory for the motor vehicle [¶2 The present invention relates to a method for ascertaining at least one emergency trajectory for an ego-vehicle using an assistance system (emergency trajectory would be understood as deviation for initial trajectory), in particular a driver assistance system of the ego-vehicle, and/or an automatic driving function., Fig. 1.16 Navigation map data],
acquiring data relating to the surroundings of the motor vehicle [¶7 detecting an imminent collision of an ego-vehicle using the assistance system or the automatic driving function,… ., ¶33 Possible components for the situation analysis surroundings model (Module 20) are: a radar, video, ultrasonic, lidar, IR and/or another (active) optical surroundings sensor (Module 12). Fig. 1.12 surrounding sensor system],
calculating a risk of the motor vehicle colliding with an obstacle taking into account the determined initial trajectory and the acquired data, then, if the risk of colliding with the obstacle exceeds a risk threshold [¶8 imminent collision… to the assistance system or the automatic driving function, not in a position to bring itself, i.e., the ego-vehicle, out of a danger zone, then the collision would occur with high or preponderant likelihood. … This means… essentially all decisions for the ego-vehicle, then this accident also occurs with high or preponderant likelihood. The higher or preponderance of probability may be selected in this case and amounts to for example 20%-30%, 30%-40%, 40%-50%, 50%-60%, or over 60%.(multiple risk thresholds optional for imminent collision), ¶ 32 a situation analysis for the ego-vehicle is carried out relation to whether a collision is imminent or threatens or not],
calculating a time to collision, then, if the time to collision is below a time threshold [¶ 32 a situation analysis for the ego-vehicle is carried out relation to whether a collision is imminent or threatens or not, ¶40 Possible criteria for the evaluation of other objects (Module 50) are: estimated time duration until the collision (time to collision), (threshold understood as some obstacle would not be an imminent collision risk otherwise all objects would be determined to be an imminent risk)],
activating a warning driving mode according to which [¶34 Chronologically after the detection of an imminent collision, the assistance system and/or the automatic driving function expands a search field for an emergency trajectory (Module 30, FIG. 2) to be selected,]:
a new trajectory is determined by the computer, said new trajectory allowing minimizing the risk of colliding with the obstacle causing a serious injury [¶35 Within the scope of a risk evaluation, a selection of an emergency trajectory for the ego-vehicle then takes place using the assistance system (Module 1).,], and an actuator for controlling the steering of the motor vehicle is controlled by the computer to follow said new trajectory [¶17 Furthermore, the intervention on the ego-vehicle may be an intervention on/in the chassis, in particular a steering, brake, and/or damper intervention,… , ¶35 … control of the ego-vehicle to be expected at a given roadway surface or other exterior parameters (Module 60)., ].
Although Wilhelm is not explicit to stating the term threshold, Wilhelm does disclose the use of different levels of criteria required for determining imminent collisions detection and strategies [see at least ¶40, ¶ 43].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to understand that different language used are an obvious variation as a similar nature of systems are disclosed and performed in a similar manner to be effectively processed by the vehicle system.
Additionally, Reinisch further discloses TTC threshold [¶14 In the state of the art, a TTC value of 5 seconds is considered as a threshold…].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm with the teachings of Reinisch to include different criteria for system actuation to begin in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
As per claim 2 Wilhelm discloses further wherein the time threshold is equal at least to a TTC criteria [¶40 Possible criteria for the evaluation of other objects (Module 50) are: estimated time duration until the collision (time to collision)].
Wilhelm is silent to however Reinisch discloses further a threshold is one amongst an emergency braking time and a reaction time of the driver [abstract: intervention point time can be determined….of a determined driver reaction time, ¶13 a model of these reaction triggers can be created, ¶ 14 TTC value… threshold, ¶19 the observation process… 0.2 second… 0.3 seconds].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm with the teachings of Reinisch to include different criteria for system actuation to begin in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
As per claim 3 Wilhelm discloses wherein the computer applies the warning driving mode(emergency trajectory intervention) is processed within an identified temporal segment (a point in time that has a beginning and end)[¶9 characterized … in a spatial and/or temporal segment].
However, Wilhelm is not explicit to however Reinisch discloses further wherein the computer maintains the warning driving mode(intervention point strategy) activated for a predetermined minimum duration [Claim 1; wherein the intervention point in time is determined as a function of a determined end point in time of a driver reaction time and of a determined last-possible braking point in time (when the intervention starts, a predetermined last-possible braking point in time is calculated, the rest of the operations are based on this window of time that has been determined beforehand to operate the intervention strategy/warning driving mode within)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm with the teachings of Reinisch to include different criteria for system actuation to begin and end in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
As per claim 4 Wilhelm discloses further in which, when the warning driving mode is activated, it is provided to regularly repeat steps of [¶12 the selected emergency trajectory may be output…, or the emergency trajectory may be changed during the traveling or a completion of an emergency trajectory, corrected by segments, (successively) supplemented, and/or newly calculated, i.e., ascertained]: acquiring the data relating to the surroundings of the motor vehicle, calculating a risk of the motor vehicle colliding with another obstacle taking into account the new trajectory and the acquired data, then, if the risk of colliding with the other obstacle exceeds a risk threshold, calculating a time to collision with the other obstacle, then, if the time to collision is below said time threshold, determining a second new trajectory allowing minimizing the risk of colliding with each obstacle causing a serious injury, and controlling said control actuator to follow said second new trajectory [see further prior art citations of Wilhelm in view of Reinisch for claim 1 for disclosing the steps].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm with the teachings of Reinisch to include different criteria for system actuation to begin in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
As per claim 7 Wilhelm discloses further wherein the new trajectory is selected from among several test trajectories using a cost function (risk evaluation) [¶10 successively ascertained from an array of emergency trajectories or an emergency trajectory space of the ego-vehicle], a value of said cost function being calculated for each test trajectory(understood as the risk evaluation/crash probability to maximize minimal injury, how much risk is associated with the trajectories, or risk cost,) [¶ 42 risk evaluation… of a crash probability (to minimize severity of injury)], said value depending, when the test trajectory encounters an obstacle, on the speed of impact with the obstacle and the type of the obstacle [¶10 Furthermore… ascertain from an array of other… trajectory space of the relevant other object(based on object/type), ¶ 35 Within the scope of risk evaluation…through an evaluation of the other objects(Module 50), ¶ 40 Possible criteria for the evaluation of other objects (Module 50) are: estimated time duration until the collision (time to collision)… offset (Module 54); object dimension (type of object considered by dimension) (Module 55); relative speed (Module 53) (relative to object would ascertain speed at impact); crash probability, etc., Fig. 4 Evaluation of other objects].
As per claim 8 Wilhelm discloses further wherein the new trajectory is selected from among several test trajectories using a cost function (risk evaluation for crash probability) [¶10 successively ascertained from an array of emergency trajectories or an emergency trajectory space of the ego-vehicle], a value of said cost function being calculated for each test trajectory [¶ 42 risk evaluation… of a crash probability (to minimize severity of injury)], said value varying depending on whether the test trajectory departs from the road followed by the motor vehicle or the traffic lane followed by the motor vehicle or the traffic lanes authorized for the motor vehicle [¶34 Chronologically after the detection of an imminent collision, the assistance system and/or the automatic driving function expands a search field for an emergency trajectory (Module 30, FIG. 2) to be selected, for example by allowing violations of the traffic rules, such as an evasion into an oncoming lane, an emergency lane, a median strip, a walk way, etc. (FIG. 5, Module 61, see below)(all part of the risk evaluation for determining best emergency trajectory)].
As per claim 9 Wilhem discloses further wherein said value depends on: —a first weight which is non-zero if the test trajectory departs from the traffic lane followed by the motor vehicle and which is zero otherwise [¶41 criteria for a selection of a roadway… are… for example, frequency of use of traffic lanes, preference for traffic lanes in one's own driving direction (for example, using the emergency lane rather than an opposite traffic lane),], and —a second weight which is non-zero and preferably greater than the first weight if the test trajectory departs from the road followed by the motor vehicle and which is zero otherwise [¶34 Chronologically after the detection of an imminent collision, the assistance system and/or the automatic driving function expands a search field for an emergency trajectory (Module 30, FIG. 2) to be selected, for example by allowing violations of the traffic rules, such as an evasion into an oncoming lane, an emergency lane, a median strip, a walk way, etc. (FIG. 5 (curb), Module 61, see below). This means that locations of this type otherwise forbidden to the ego-vehicle may be traversed in the exceptional situation (higher risk/weight for departing a road such as walk way or curb) of the imminent collision or used in order to prevent the collision.].
As per claim 10 Wilhelm discloses further wherein the new trajectory is selected from among several test trajectories using a cost function [¶10 successively ascertained from an array of emergency trajectories or an emergency trajectory space of the ego-vehicle], a value of said cost function being calculated for each test trajectory[¶ 42 risk evaluation… of a crash probability (to minimize severity of injury)], said value varying depending on whether the test trajectory deviates or not from the initial trajectory [¶12 the selected emergency trajectory may be output…, or the emergency trajectory may be changed during the traveling or a completion of an emergency trajectory, corrected by segments, (successively) supplemented, and/or newly calculated, i.e., ascertained (risk evaluation continues with organic environments, changing risk evaluation)].
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160001775 (“Wilhelm”) in view of US 20120283927 (“Reinisch”) in further view of US 10059335 (“Newman”).
As per claim 5 Wilhelm in view of Reinisch is silent to however Newman discloses further, wherein, when the warning driving mode is activated, it is provided to control the return into the nominal mode as soon as the duration during which the warning driving mode exceeds a predetermined threshold [col 8;10-14 The sequence may further include a specification of the magnitude of each action in the sequence, as well as its duration and timing. Usually the sequence of actions includes thresholds, Fig. 14.1412 iterative process ends, Fig. 16 (sequence step) 4d. Inform driver that intervention is over, 5a. Relinquish all control].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm in view of Reinisch with the teachings of Newman to include different parameters for system actuation to begin and end in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
As per claim 6 Wilhelm in view of Reinisch is silent to however Newman discloses further wherein, when the warning driving mode is activated, it is provided to control the return into the nominal mode as soon as the new trajectory is free of any obstacle and that the motor vehicle has been stable for a predetermined duration [col 8;10-14 The sequence may further include a specification of the magnitude of each action in the sequence, as well as its duration and timing. Usually the sequence of actions includes thresholds, Fig. 14.1412 iterative process ends, Fig. 16 (sequence step) 4.when straightened in the lane (after duration, would impellent ending intervention 4d Inform driver that intervention is over].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm in view of Reinisch with the teachings of Newman to include different parameters for system actuation to begin and end in order for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160001775 (“Wilhelm”) in view of US 20120283927 (“Reinisch”) in further view of US 20210334630 (“Lambert”).
As per claim 11 Wilhelm in view of Reinisch is silent to however Lambert discloses further wherein the new trajectory is selected from among several test trajectories using an MPPI-type algorithm [¶55 In at least one embodiment, model predictive control (MPC) refers to a framework for control and/or trajectory optimization which may be utilized within various contexts one known exemplary optimal control is path integral control, ¶ 88 In at least one embodiment, in context of model predictive control using path integrals (MPPI-type algorithm), Fig. 9A-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm in view of Reinisch with the teachings of Lambert to include different control algorithms for system interventions to function effectively in at appropriate events to increase safety to the vehicle by activating such control features at correct circumstances.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160001775 (“Wilhelm”) in view of US 20120283927 (“Reinisch”) in further view of US 20230124848 (“Nister”).
As per claim 12 Wilhelm in view of Reinisch is silent to however Nister discloses further, wherein said data are in the form of a probabilistic occupancy grid representative of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [¶71 In some examples, the behavior planner may consider more free-form trajectories by taking into account adynamic occupancy grid (e.g., a grid indicative of objects, stationary and moving, in the vicinity of the vehicle 102] and containing information about the objects present in the surroundings of the motor vehicle [¶221 The outputs may include information such as vehicle velocity, speed, time, map data (e.g., the HD map 1122 of FIG. 11C), location data (e.g., the vehicle's 102 location, such as on a map), direction, location of other vehicles (e.g., an occupancy grid), information about objects and status of objects as perceived by the controller, ¶193, Fig. 9A-D].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Wilhelm in view of Reinisch with the teachings of Nister to include environmental parameters for system actuation to function accordingly for interventions to action at appropriate times to increase safety to the driver by activating such safety features only when needed.
Additional Art to Consider
Application Pub. No. 20190337510 titled, CAMERA SYSTEM FOR INTELLIGENT ORNER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM, AND ORNER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD, includes a system that monitors an “initial trajectory,” calculates a collision risk, and triggers an autonomous steering maneuver once a “risk threshold” is met. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention in that Applicant’s in using risk threshold analysis for determining a safety maneuver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662