DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-5 and 7 remain pending.
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 a 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 12/17/2025.
The Applicant argues that Ike determines brake assist solely from a PBA flag derived from TTC and therefore allegedly does not dynamically adjust deceleration or braking force of the host vehicle in response to changes in an object’s speed during host vehicle deceleration. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner finds Ike teaches that the brake control process is repeatedly executed at predetermined sampling times (Ike ¶ [0070]). During each sampling cycle, updated sensor measurements, including detected object distance and relative speed, are obtained and the TTC is recalculated using the newly detected object information. As the detected object speed changes between sampling cycles, the calculated TTC correspondingly increases or decreases, thereby continuously updating the evaluated collision risk rather than relying on a single determination.
Moreover, the Examiner finds Ike teaches determining brake assist levels according to the calculated collision risk. For example, raising the assist level as collision risk increases and decreasing the assist level as the collision risk decreases (¶¶ [0058]–[0069]). In other words, as the assist level increases, the braking force applied to the host vehicle correspondingly increases, thereby changing the deceleration of the host vehicle in response to the evaluated collision condition.
Therefore, based on the teachings discussed above, Ike discloses repeatedly updating TTC using detected object speed across successive sampling cycles and adjusting brake assist levels that modify braking force according to the updated collision risk derived from those speed-based determinations. Taken together, these teachings demonstrate that changes in object speed result in corresponding adjustments to braking force during vehicle deceleration. Ike thus teaches increasing a deceleration or braking force of the host vehicle according to a speed of the object when the host vehicle is decelerating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0244036 (hereinafter, Ike), in view of Ohmura U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0339080 (hereinafter, Ohmura).
Regarding Claim 1, Ike describes a collision avoidance assistance device comprising one or more processors (collision avoidance assistance device, Ike, Paragraph 0014) configured to:
…
-calculate a time to collision and a predicted collision point between the host vehicle and the object based on the predicted path of the host vehicle and the predicted path of the object (determining a time to collision for a vehicle and object, Ike, Paragraph -0021-0022); and
-if the time to collision or a travel distance of the host vehicle in the time to collision is equal to or smaller than a brake application determination threshold, decelerate the host vehicle by a predetermined deceleration or braking force to avoid a collision with the object (vehicle determines the risk of collision, which is based, in part, on the distance of the host vehicle in the time of collision, and based on the TTC decelerate the vehicle by a predetermined deceleration braking force to avoid a collision, Ike, Paragraphs 0046-0052 and 0021-0022 and Figure 4),
-wherein the one or more processors are configured to: calculate an amount of time to reach the predicted collision point, the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point being an estimated amount of time until the host vehicle reaches the predicted collision point when the host vehicle decelerates by the predetermined deceleration or braking force (time to collision for a vehicle and object can be calculated in real time, thus the vehicle is capable of determining the amount of time to the collision point based on the host vehicle decelerating via the predetermined braking force (e.g., level 1 or 2 braking), Ike, Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4); …
-change the brake application determination threshold based on the predicted passing time and the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point, (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, Ike, Paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4) … and
-increase a deceleration or a braking force of the host vehicle according to a speed of the object when the host vehicle is decelerating (host vehicle capable of increasing or decreasing the braking force of the host vehicle, based in part, on the determined speed of the object (e.g., if the host vehicle can determine that the speed of the object is decreasing (i.e., decelerating) then the TTC in real-time (i.e., sampling cycle) is determined to be increasing and the host vehicle may shift to a lesser assist level which is a decrease of the braking force), Ike, Paragraphs 0058-0075, 0021-0022, 0016, and Figures 1-4) .
Ike does not specifically disclose the device to include calculat[ing] a predicted path of a host vehicle and a predicted path of an object present on a road crossing the host vehicle; and the predicted passing time being an estimated time required for the object to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted path of the object and the predicted path of the host vehicle; and calculat[ing] a predicted overlap ratio based on the predicted path of the host vehicle and the predicted path of the object, the predicted overlap ratio being a ratio of overlap between the host vehicle and the object at the predicted collision point; calculat[ing] the predicted passing time based on the predicted overlap ratio.
Ohmura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ohmura describes a vehicle system that include predicating a path of the host vehicle and a predicted path of an object present at a road crossing of the host vehicle (Ohmura, Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 2 and 5). Moreover, Ohmura describes predicating a passing time required for the object to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted path of the object and the predicted path of the host vehicle (Ohmura, Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 2, 3, and 5). Additionally, Ohmura describes determining an overlap time between the host vehicle and an object, wherein the overlap time is part of a determination of time passing and collision, thus a ratio of overlap (Ohmura, Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 2, 3, and 5).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Ike to include calculating a predicted path of a host vehicle and a predicted path of an object present on a road crossing the host vehicle; and the predicted passing time being an estimated time required for the object to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted path of the object and the predicted path of the host vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ohmura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a path of a vehicle and an object, along with the time for the object or vehicle to clear the intersection and collide with the object, allows for the vehicle determine avoiding a collision with the object, wherein avoiding a collision with an object is desired in the industry (Ohmura, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 2, Ike, as modified, describes the collision avoidance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance assistance device comprises one or more processors configured to:
-decelerate the host vehicle by a first deceleration or a first braking force and decelerate the host vehicle by a second deceleration smaller than the first deceleration or a second braking force smaller than the first braking force (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, Ike, Paragraph 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4);
-calculate an amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in first deceleration, the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in first deceleration being an estimated amount of time until the host vehicle reaches the predicted collision point when the host vehicle is decelerated by the first deceleration controller (time to collision for a vehicle and object can be calculated in real time, thus the vehicle is capable of determining the amount of time to the collision point based on the host vehicle decelerating via the braking force (e.g., level 1 or 2 braking), Ike, Paragraphs 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4); and
-decrease the brake application determination threshold when the predicted passing time is smaller than the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in first deceleration (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, Ike, Paragraph 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Ike, as modified, describes the collision avoidance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
-decelerate the host vehicle by a first deceleration or a first braking force and decelerate the host vehicle by a second deceleration smaller than the first deceleration or a second braking force smaller than the first braking force (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, Ike, Paragraph 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4);
-calculate an amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in second deceleration, the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in second deceleration being an estimated amount of time until the host vehicle reaches the predicted collision point when the host vehicle is decelerated (time to collision for a vehicle and object can be calculated in real time, thus the vehicle is capable of determining the amount of time to the collision point based on the host vehicle decelerating via the predetermined braking force (e.g., level 1 or 2 braking), Ike, Paragraphs 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4); and
-increase the brake application determination threshold when the predicted passing time is smaller than the amount of time to reach the predicted collision point in second deceleration (time to collision for a vehicle and object can be calculated in real time, thus the vehicle is capable of determining the amount of time to the collision point based on the host vehicle decelerating via the predetermined braking force (e.g., level 1 or 2 braking), Ike, Paragraphs 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Ike, as modified, describes the collision avoidance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to allow changing the brake application determination threshold when a vehicle speed of the host vehicle is larger than a predetermined host vehicle speed threshold (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, which is based in part on the vehicle speed of the host vehicle (i.e., threshold value), Ike, Paragraph 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Ike, as modified, describes the collision avoidance assistance device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to allow changing the brake application determination threshold when a vehicle speed of the object is larger than a predetermined object vehicle speed threshold (vehicle capable of changing the brake application threshold (e.g., level 1-4) based on the TTC, which is a time based on the vehicle and object to collide, which is based in part on the vehicle speed of the host vehicle (i.e., threshold value), Ike, Paragraph 0022 and 0046-0052 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Ike, as modified, describes the collision avoidance assistance device according to claim 1.
Ike does not specifically disclose the device to include that the one or more processors are configured to calculate a time to be added to the predicted passing time based on at least one of a speed of the object or a distance between the object and the host vehicle.
Ohmura discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ohmura describes determining a passing time, wherein time can be added to the passing time based on the speed of the object and/or distance between the object and the host vehicle, these are inputs the vehicle uses to determine the passing time and collision time (Ohmura, Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 2, 3, and 5).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Ike to include that the collision avoidance assistance device is configured to calculate a time to be added to the predicted passing time based on at least one of a speed of the object or a distance between the object and the host vehicle, as taught or at least suggested by Ohmura.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a path of a vehicle and an object, along with the time for the object or vehicle to clear the intersection and collide with the object, allows for the vehicle determine avoiding a collision with the object, wherein avoiding a collision with an object is desired in the industry (Ohmura, Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667