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 .
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.
Reopening of Prosecution
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 03/20/2026, and the appeal conference held between the examiner, his SPE, and RQAS David Eastwood, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/THOMAS E WORDEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
As a result, the instant Office action is NOT made final, and the previously made 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-10, 12, and 17-20, and the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of claims 11 and 13-16 have been withdrawn, and are hereby replaced with new 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections that have been presented below.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US20190232958, referred to as Deng).
Regarding claim 1: Deng discloses: A computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to: ([0011] A system includes a computer including a processor
and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to) determine an availability metric, the availability metric being a kinematic quantity that, based on a relationship between a first vehicle and a second vehicle, is necessary for the first vehicle to successfully perform an anticipated operation, the anticipated operation being at least one of anticipated braking or anticipated steering to maneuver the first vehicle away from a projected path of the second vehicle; ([0061] the computer 105 may determine the acceleration threat number ATN, the brake threat number BTN, and the steering threat number STN for the host vehicle 101 and the target 200, and based on the threat numbers ATN, BTN, STN, which may be combined into a single threat number TN, to actuate components 120. [0062] The BTN is a measure of a needed longitudinal deceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to stop before colliding with the target 200. The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a. The computer 105 can determine a longitudinal deceleration to stop the host vehicle 101 before colliding with the target 200, e.g., 2 m/s2 . The computer 105 can determine a maximum deceleration of the host vehicle 101, e.g., 8 m/s2.) determine a maneuver metric, the maneuver metric being a kinematic quantity that the first vehicle is capable of achieving when attempting to perform the anticipated operation to maneuver the first vehicle away from the projected path of the second vehicle, the maneuver metric being measured in the same units as the availability metric; ([0062] The BTN can be the ratio of the needed
deceleration to the maximum deceleration, e.g., BTN=2/8=0.25.) determine a threat number based on a comparison of the availability metric and the maneuver metric; and in response to the threat number exceeding a threshold, actuate a vehicle system to operate one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle. ([0061] the computer 105 may determine the acceleration threat number ATN, the brake threat number BTN, and the steering threat number STN for the host vehicle 101 and the target 200, and based on the threat numbers ATN, BTN, STN, which may be combined into a single threat number TN, to actuate components 120.)
Examiner’s Note: Deng discloses using multiple ratios of own vehicle capabilities (maneuver metrics) to collision avoidance necessitated motion (availability metrics) in order to determine a threat number that is used to trigger the vehicle control process when exceeded. The numerator of the ATN, BN, STN, and TN represents the maneuver metrics and the denominator of each term represents the availability metric.
Regarding claim 2: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the second vehicle includes the vehicle system. ([0028] A computer 105 in the vehicle 101 is programmed to receive collected data 115 from one or more sensors 110 [0036] FIG. 2 illustrates an example host vehicle 101 in an intersection with an example target 200 (in this example, a second vehicle 101) that can cross the path of the host vehicle 101 in an intersection on a roadway. The target 200 can be, e.g., another vehicle 101, a bicycle, an obstacle, etc.)
Regarding claim 3: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the first vehicle includes the vehicle system, and the instructions to actuate the vehicle system include instructions to perform the anticipated operation. ([0041] The computer 105 can detect the oncoming target 200 and determine whether to perform a threat analysis on the target 200 and actuate components 120 to avoid the target 200.)
Regarding claim 4: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the availability metric is an available lateral acceleration of the first vehicle, and the maneuver metric is a maneuver lateral acceleration of the first vehicle. ([0063] The STN is a measure of a needed lateral acceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to steer away from the target 200. As with the BTN, the computer 105 can determine a needed lateral acceleration to avoid a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200.)
Regarding claim 5: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 4,
Deng further discloses: wherein the threat number includes a quotient of the maneuver lateral acceleration and the available lateral acceleration. ([0063] The STN can be the ratio of the needed lateral acceleration to a
maximum lateral acceleration of the host vehicle 101.)
Regarding claim 6: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the anticipated operation includes the anticipated steering of the first vehicle to an orientation parallel to the projected path of the second vehicle. ([0063] The STN is a measure of a needed lateral acceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to steer away from the target 200. As with the BTN, the computer 105 can determine a needed lateral acceleration to avoid a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200. [Fig. 6] host vehicle 101 trajectory 210h compared to target reference vehicle 200a trajectory 210a)
Regarding claim 7: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 6,
Deng further discloses: wherein the anticipated operation includes following a circular path from a current position to a second position, the first vehicle at the second position having the orientation parallel to the projected path of the second vehicle. ([0063] The STN is a measure of a needed lateral acceleration to allow the host vehicle 101 to steer away from the target 200. As with the BTN, the computer 105 can determine a needed lateral acceleration to avoid a collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200. [Fig. 6] host vehicle 101 trajectory 210h compared to target reference vehicle 200a trajectory 210a)
Regarding claim 8: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 7,
Deng further discloses: wherein the availability metric is based on a radius of the circular path. ([0055] The computer 105 can determine a curvature Kh of the host vehicle 101 trajectory at a time t. The curvature Kh is a measure of a radius of curvature of the host vehicle 101 trajectory along the projected path 210h. [0057] when the computer 105 determines that the sign of the curvature Kh changes, the computer 105 can determine a threat number for targets 200.)
Regarding claim 9: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 8,
Deng further discloses: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine the radius based on a relative heading between the first vehicle and the second vehicle and ([0060] The computer 105 can determine a heading angle 1.jJ, defined between the projected path 210h of the host vehicle 101 and a target 200. In the example of FIG. 8, the computer 105 can determine a first heading angle 1.jJ, 1 and a first heading angle
rate~' 1 between the projected path 210h of the host vehicle 101 and a projected path 210a of the first target 200a. The computer 105 can determine a second heading angle 1.jJ, 2 and a second heading angle rate ~, 2 between the projected path 210h of the host vehicle 101 and a projected path 210b of the second target 200b.) based on a shortest distance from the first vehicle to the projected path of the second vehicle. ([0061] The computer 105 can determine a threat number TNm for each target 200. A threat number is a prediction of whether a specific target 200 will intersect or collide with the host vehicle 101.)
Regarding claim 10: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 7,
Deng further discloses: wherein the first vehicle in the second position is spaced from the projected path of the second vehicle by a predefined distance. ([Fig. 6] host vehicle 101 trajectory 210h compared to target reference vehicle 200a trajectory 210a, trajectories shift with each other with spaced distance to accommodate collision avoidance)
Regarding claim 17: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the threat number is a first threat number, and the instructions further include instructions to: determine a second threat number; in response to both the first threat number and the second number exceeding the threshold, actuate the vehicle system to operate one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle; and in response to one of the first threat number and the second number being below the threshold and the other of the first threat number and the second number exceeding the threshold, refrain from actuating the vehicle system to operate the one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle; and in response to the first threat number and the second number both being below the threshold, refrain from actuating the vehicle system to operate the one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle. ([0066] The computer 105 can determine the overall threat number TN as the maximum value of threat numbers TNi, TN2, ... , TNm, i.e. the respective threat numbers of the M targets 200. However, as described below, the computer 105 can determine that one or more targets 200 have a low probability of a collision with the host vehicle 101, and the computer 105 can exclude those targets 200 from further threat analysis and collision avoidance and mitigation.)
Examiner’s Note: The maximum function here means that for the summation of the first and second threat level, collision avoidance will only be triggered in the instance where both threat numbers are above the collision interference predetermined threshold. In both other instances (both threat numbers under threshold; one threat number under threshold), the function would not actuate components 120 as the threat would not be deemed existential enough for immediate autonomous corrective control.
Regarding claim 18: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the vehicle system is a brake system, and the anticipated operation includes anticipated braking. ([0067] The computer 105 can actuate one or more vehicle components 120 based on the threat number TN, e.g., when the threat number TN is above a predetermined threat number threshold. The computer 105 can actuate one or more components 120 based on a comparison of the threat number to a plurality of thresholds. For example, if the threat number TN is above 0.7, the computer 105 can actuate a
brake 120 to decelerate the host vehicle 101)
Regarding claim 19: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng further discloses: wherein the vehicle system is a steering system, and the anticipated operation includes anticipated steering. ([0037] The computer 105 can be programmed to actuate one or more components 120 in an OCTAP intersection to avoid and/or mitigate a collision with the targets 200. [0033] Non-limiting examples of components 120 include a propulsion component (that includes, e.g., an internal combustion engine and/or an electric motor, etc.), a transmission component, a steering component ( e.g., that may include one or more of a steering wheel, a steering rack, etc.), a brake component, a park assist component, an adaptive cruise control component, an adaptive steering component, a movable seat, and the like.)
Regarding claim 20: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Wang (US11059485B2, referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 11: Deng discloses: The computer of claim 1,
Deng does not explicitly disclose: wherein the threat number includes an exponential function of an argument, the argument including the availability metric and the maneuver metric.
Deng does not disclose the following limitations, however, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the threat number includes an exponential function of an argument, the argument including the availability metric and the maneuver metric. ([col. 14, lines 15-42] the first type of utilities include values respectively corresponding to a current lane on which the target vehicle is currently located, a left lane and a right lane that are adjacent to the target vehicle. For example, the type of utilities may be calculated by using a formula U_MLC=p2×pow (nlanechange (distanceToJunction/d0), p3), where p2 and p3 are weight values. The pow function is to raise the first parameter to the power of the second parameter, and is a binary arithmetic function acting on a time series. Optionally an exponential model may be used as the first model, such as the MLC, and advantages of such processing are: impact of the MLC is quickly increased as the distance from the target vehicle to the junction is gradually reduced, and finally plays an absolute dominant role near the junction, so that impact of the second model, such as the DLC, may be neglected and intermediate transition is smooth and natural. )
Deng and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the collision avoidance threat number of Deng to enable the exponential function of an argument taught in Wang. The motivation for modification would have been to provide the collision avoidance method disclosed in Deng with the method using the exponential function taught in Wang because impact of the MLC is quickly increased as the distance from the target vehicle to the junction is gradually reduced, and finally plays an absolute dominant role near the junction, so that impact of the second model, such as the DLC, may be neglected and intermediate transition is smooth and natural. Such design conforms to an actual lane change law”.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Deng and Wang teaches: The computer of claim 11,
Deng further discloses: wherein the argument includes a difference between the maneuver metric and the availability metric. ([0066] The computer 105 can determine the overall threat number TN as the maximum value of threat numbers TNi, TN2, ... , TNm, i.e. the respective threat numbers of the M targets 200. However, as described below, the computer 105 can determine that one or more targets 200 have a low probability of a collision with the host vehicle 101, and the computer 105 can exclude those targets 200 from further threat analysis and collision avoidance and mitigation.)
Examiner’s Note: The maximum function here means that for the summation of the first and second threat level, collision avoidance will only be triggered in the instance where both threat numbers are above the collision interference predetermined threshold. Further using an exponential model on the difference in maneuver metric and availability metric disclosed in Deng would have been obvious for the reasons discussed in the rationale of the use of Wang in Claim 11, and will not be repeated here for brevity.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Deng and Wang teaches: The computer of claim 12,
Deng does not disclose the following limitations, however, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a factor based on a speed of the first vehicle, and the argument includes a product of the difference and the factor. ([col. 24-25, lines 51-27] Third step. Calculate utilities of lanes, that is, integrate comprehensive utilities obtained based on utilities of the MLC and the DLC. A DLC related utility is calculated according to a lane speed (laneSpeed) and a maximum speed limit (SPEED_LIMIT) for a particular (specific) lane by using a formula (1). U_DLC=p1×laneSpeed/SPEED_LIMIT (1) An MLC related utility is calculated according to a quantity of lane change times (nlanechange), a distance from a vehicle to a junction distanceToJunction), and a minimum distance d0 required for single lane change by using a formula (2). U_MLC=p2×pow(lanechange(distanceToJunction/d0),p3) (2) d0 is a minimum distance that is required for completing single lane change and that is estimated according to a current speed and a lane change time, and a calculation method is shown in a formula (3). d0=MAX(dmin,vehicleSpeed×t0) (3) dmin and t0 are constants and may be endowed with values according to an actual need, and vehicleSpeed is a speed of the current vehicle, and t0 is time that is required for completing single lane change and is estimated according to experience. It is suggested that dmin=50 m, and t0=10 s. p1, p2, and p3 are respectively weight coefficients and may be adjusted according to a need usually, p1=10, p2=2.0, and p3=2.0. A method for calculating a lane comprehensiveness utility is shown in a formula (4). Utility=(int)U_DLC−(int)U_MLC (4) It is noted that, U_DLC and U_MLC are first respectively rounded and then the comprehensiveness utility is calculated. In this way, it is equivalent to grading key factors such as speed and distance)
As previously stated, Deng and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the collision avoidance threat number of Deng to enable the factor product taught in Wang. The motivation for modification would have been to provide the collision avoidance method disclosed in Deng with the method using the factor product taught in Wang
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Deng and Wang teaches: The computer of claim 12,
Deng does not disclose the following limitations, however, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a factor based on a turning status of the first vehicle, and the argument includes a product of the difference and the factor. ([col. 24-25, lines 51-27] Third step. Calculate utilities of lanes, that is, integrate comprehensive utilities obtained based on utilities of the MLC and the DLC. A DLC related utility is calculated according to a lane speed (laneSpeed) and a maximum speed limit (SPEED_LIMIT) for a particular (specific) lane by using a formula (1). U_DLC=p1×laneSpeed/SPEED_LIMIT (1) An MLC related utility is calculated according to a quantity of lane change times (nlanechange), a distance from a vehicle to a junction distanceToJunction), and a minimum distance d0 required for single lane change by using a formula (2).
U_MLC=p2×pow(lanechange(distanceToJunction/d0),p3) (2) d0 is a minimum distance that is required for completing single lane change and that is estimated according to a current speed and a lane change time, and a calculation method is shown in a formula (3). d0=MAX(dmin,vehicleSpeed×t0) (3) dmin and t0 are constants and may be endowed with values according to an actual need, and vehicleSpeed is a speed of the current vehicle, and t0 is time that is required for completing single lane change and is estimated according to experience. It is suggested that dmin=50 m, and t0=10 s. p1, p2, and p3 are respectively weight coefficients and may be adjusted according to a need usually, p1=10, p2=2.0, and p3=2.0. A method for calculating a lane comprehensiveness utility is shown in a formula (4). Utility=(int)U_DLC−(int)U_MLC (4) It is noted that, U_DLC and U_MLC are first respectively rounded and then the comprehensiveness utility is calculated. In this way, it is equivalent to grading key factors such as speed and distance)
As previously stated, Deng and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the collision avoidance threat number of Deng to enable the factor product taught in Wang. The motivation for modification would have been to provide the collision avoidance method disclosed in Deng with the method using the factor product taught in Wang
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Deng and Wang teaches: The computer of claim 12,
Deng does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a factor based on a classification of the first vehicle, and the argument includes a product of the difference and the factor. ([col. 24-25, lines 51-27] Third step. Calculate utilities of lanes, that is, integrate comprehensive utilities obtained based on utilities of the MLC and the DLC. A DLC related utility is calculated according to a lane speed (laneSpeed) and a maximum speed limit (SPEED_LIMIT) for a particular (specific) lane by using a formula (1). U_DLC=p1×laneSpeed/SPEED_LIMIT (1) An MLC related utility is calculated according to a quantity of lane change times (nlanechange), a distance from a vehicle to a junction distanceToJunction), and a minimum distance d0 required for single lane change by using a formula (2). U_MLC=p2×pow(lanechange(distanceToJunction/d0),p3 (2) d0 is a minimum distance that is required for completing single lane change and that is estimated according to a current speed and a lane change time, and a calculation method is shown in a formula (3). d0=MAX(dmin,vehicleSpeed×t0) (3) dmin and t0 are constants and may be endowed with values according to an actual need, and vehicleSpeed is a speed of the current vehicle, and t0 is time that is required for completing single lane change and is estimated according to experience. It is suggested that dmin=50 m, and t0=10 s. p1, p2, and p3 are respectively weight coefficients and may be adjusted according to a need usually, p1=10, p2=2.0, and p3=2.0. A method for calculating a lane comprehensiveness utility is shown in a formula (4). Utility=(int)U_DLC−(int)U_MLC (4) It is noted that, U_DLC and U_MLC are first respectively rounded and then the comprehensiveness utility is calculated. In this way, it is equivalent to grading key factors such as speed and distance)
As previously stated, Deng and Wang are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of vehicle collision avoidance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the collision avoidance threat number of Deng to enable the factor product taught in Wang. The motivation for modification would have been to provide the collision avoidance method disclosed in Deng with the method using the factor product taught in Wang
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Deng and Wang teaches: The computer of claim 11,
Deng further discloses: wherein the availability metric is an available distance, and the maneuver metric is a maneuver distance. ([0062] The BTN can be based on a measured host vehicle 101 speed, a distance between the target 200 and the host vehicle 101, and the projected paths 210h, 210a.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights