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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-15 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The drawings were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the drawings accordingly; therefore, the drawings objection is withdrawn.
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the specification accordingly; therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn.
Claims 6-7 and 13-14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on pages 9-11 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 2-7 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Labarbera.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama of US 20220185263 A1, filed 11/23/2021, hereinafter “Akiyama”, in view of Labarbera of US 20230122952 A1, filed 10/18/2021, hereinafter “Labarbera”.
Regarding claim 1, Akiyama teaches:
A vehicle control method, the method comprising: (See at least [0025]: “The vehicle control apparatus according to the first example embodiment may perform a post-crash braking control, or a multi-collision brake control. The post-crash braking control may execute braking automatically and thereby decelerates or stops an own vehicle in a case where the own vehicle collides with an object such as another vehicle.”)
initiating control including steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of a subject vehicle depending on a yaw rate value in response that a collision with a following vehicle behind the subject vehicle occurs; and (See at least Figs. 4A-4B & [0107-0108]: “The braking control unit 100 may execute the post-crash braking control that causes the fluid-pressure-based service brake to generate the braking force and thereby decelerates the vehicle at predetermined deceleration and eventually stops the vehicle. Further, the braking control unit 100 executes the attitude stabilization control that generates a yaw moment on the basis of the deviation between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate. The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver.”)
stopping the control depending on the yaw rate value after execution of the control, (See at least Fig. 3 & [0108-0109]: “…The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver. Thereafter, a series of processes may end or may be returned.”)
Akiyama does not explicitly teach:
wherein the differential braking control is performed based on that criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the steering control of the subject vehicle, and
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed based on that the criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle.
Labarbera teaches:
wherein the differential braking control is performed based on that criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the steering control of the subject vehicle, and (See at least Fig. 3 & [0029]: “…Where sensors and or the steering system 114 has indicated to the controller 112 that an evasive maneuver is underway, the controller 112 may send a brake movement request to provide differential braking at all roadwheels to increase yaw rate of the vehicle. If the steering system 114 indicates that a power steering assist has failed, the controller 112 may receive driver input 134 via a steering wheel and convert steering requests into brake pressure requests or commands 128 to be communicated to the electric braking system 116…” & [0031]: “…The system may routinely or approximately continuously provide brake-to-steer capability to a controller 302 indicating readiness of the brake-to-steer functionality. At point 304, the steering system status, including steering assist health status, may be communicated to the motion controller. In some instances, the health status may indicate that portions of the steering assist are at risk of failing, failing, is malfunctioning or not operable. At point 306, the controller may receive the steering system health status and determine that the steering has failed…”. See also [0026] regarding a desired yaw rate and [0037] regarding the power steering being “partially operational”.)
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed based on that the criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle. (See at least Fig. 3, [0024]: “…An electric braking system may provide a response to driver input of steering signals to reduce increase the yaw rate of the vehicle. In some cases, the system may provide for control of a vehicles propulsion system and may adjust throttle, speed, acceleration, and the like as needed to maintain driving speed and/or further enhance the yaw rate of the vehicle while the brake-to-steer system is operating…” & [0031]: “…At point 314, the controller sends torque request to a propulsion system to meet roadwheel acceleration or deceleration request to further increase the yaw rate of the vehicle.” See also Fig. 4C & [0034] regarding the powertrain torque being applied across the rear axle (i.e., differential acceleration control) to further increase yaw rate of the vehicle.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama’s method with Labarbera’s technique of performing differential braking control based on the yaw rate value not satisfying a criteria after steering control of the subject vehicle and performing differential acceleration control based on the yaw rate value not satisfying a criteria after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to add additional yaw torque to the driver induced steering angle in the event of an evasive maneuver, thus helping the driver achieve higher yaw rates in an emergency avoidance maneuver” (See [0018] of Labarbera).
Regarding claim 3, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama additionally teaches:
wherein the differential braking control is performed until the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold in a direction in which the subject vehicle intends to be controlled. (See at least Figs. 4A-4B & [0107-0108]: “The braking control unit 100 may execute the post-crash braking control that causes the fluid-pressure-based service brake to generate the braking force and thereby decelerates the vehicle at predetermined deceleration and eventually stops the vehicle. Further, the braking control unit 100 executes the attitude stabilization control that generates a yaw moment on the basis of the deviation between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate. The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver.”)
NOTE: Claim 3 recites the following contingent limitation: “…wherein the differential braking control is performed until the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold in a direction in which the subject vehicle intends to be controlled”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its condition in claim 2 is met (“…wherein the differential braking control is performed…”). This limitation only needs to be performed if the control performed in claim 2 is the differential braking control. Furthermore, if the control performed in claim 2 is the differential acceleration control or if the control initiated in claim 1 is the steering control, then this limitation does not need to be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 3 does not require this limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Akiyama teaches:
A vehicle control apparatus, the apparatus comprising: (See at least [0025]: “The vehicle control apparatus according to the first example embodiment may perform a post-crash braking control, or a multi-collision brake control. The post-crash braking control may execute braking automatically and thereby decelerates or stops an own vehicle in a case where the own vehicle collides with an object such as another vehicle.”)
a sensor configured to sense a yaw rate value and detect a collision with a following vehicle behind a subject vehicle; and (See at least [0035]: “The yaw rate sensor 102 may detect a yaw rate. The yaw rate may be a rotation speed around a vertical axis of a vehicle body of the vehicle” & [0093]: “The acceleration sensor 301 may be provided at each of multiple locations of the vehicle body. The acceleration sensor 301 detects a collision of the vehicle 1. For example, the acceleration sensor 301 may detect acceleration that acts on the vehicle body upon the collision. In one embodiment, the acceleration sensor 301 may serve as a “collision detector” or a “contact detector”.” See also [0103] regarding obtaining data on yaw rate after a collision.)
a controller configured to: initiate control include steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of the subject vehicle depending on the yaw rate value in response that the collision with the following vehicle occurs; and (See at least Figs. 4A-4B & [0107-0108]: “The braking control unit 100 may execute the post-crash braking control that causes the fluid-pressure-based service brake to generate the braking force and thereby decelerates the vehicle at predetermined deceleration and eventually stops the vehicle. Further, the braking control unit 100 executes the attitude stabilization control that generates a yaw moment on the basis of the deviation between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate. The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver.”)
stop the control depending on the yaw rate value after execution of the control, (See at least Fig. 3 & [0108-0109]: “…The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver. Thereafter, a series of processes may end or may be returned.”)
Akiyama does not explicitly teach:
wherein the differential braking control is performed based on that criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the steering control of the subject vehicle, and
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed based on that the criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle.
Labarbera teaches:
wherein the differential braking control is performed based on that criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the steering control of the subject vehicle, and (See at least Fig. 3 & [0029]: “…Where sensors and or the steering system 114 has indicated to the controller 112 that an evasive maneuver is underway, the controller 112 may send a brake movement request to provide differential braking at all roadwheels to increase yaw rate of the vehicle. If the steering system 114 indicates that a power steering assist has failed, the controller 112 may receive driver input 134 via a steering wheel and convert steering requests into brake pressure requests or commands 128 to be communicated to the electric braking system 116…” & [0031]: “…The system may routinely or approximately continuously provide brake-to-steer capability to a controller 302 indicating readiness of the brake-to-steer functionality. At point 304, the steering system status, including steering assist health status, may be communicated to the motion controller. In some instances, the health status may indicate that portions of the steering assist are at risk of failing, failing, is malfunctioning or not operable. At point 306, the controller may receive the steering system health status and determine that the steering has failed…”. See also [0026] regarding a desired yaw rate and [0037] regarding the power steering being “partially operational”.)
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed based on that the criteria based on the yaw rate value are not satisfied after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle. (See at least Fig. 3, [0024]: “…An electric braking system may provide a response to driver input of steering signals to reduce increase the yaw rate of the vehicle. In some cases, the system may provide for control of a vehicles propulsion system and may adjust throttle, speed, acceleration, and the like as needed to maintain driving speed and/or further enhance the yaw rate of the vehicle while the brake-to-steer system is operating…” & [0031]: “…At point 314, the controller sends torque request to a propulsion system to meet roadwheel acceleration or deceleration request to further increase the yaw rate of the vehicle.” See also Fig. 4C & [0034] regarding the powertrain torque being applied across the rear axle (i.e., differential acceleration control) to further increase yaw rate of the vehicle.)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama’s method with Labarbera’s technique of performing differential braking control based on the yaw rate value not satisfying a criteria after steering control of the subject vehicle and performing differential acceleration control based on the yaw rate value not satisfying a criteria after the differential braking control of the subject vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to add additional yaw torque to the driver induced steering angle in the event of an evasive maneuver, thus helping the driver achieve higher yaw rates in an emergency avoidance maneuver” (See [0018] of Labarbera).
Regarding claim 10, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Akiyama additionally teaches:
wherein the differential braking control is performed until the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold in a direction in which the subject vehicle intends to be controlled. (See at least Figs. 4A-4B & [0107-0108]: “The braking control unit 100 may execute the post-crash braking control that causes the fluid-pressure-based service brake to generate the braking force and thereby decelerates the vehicle at predetermined deceleration and eventually stops the vehicle. Further, the braking control unit 100 executes the attitude stabilization control that generates a yaw moment on the basis of the deviation between the target yaw rate and the actual yaw rate. The attitude stabilization control may generate, by means of a difference in braking force between the right and the left wheels, the yaw moment that brings the actual yaw rate closer to the target yaw rate. The target yaw rate may be calculated on the basis of, for example, the steering angle that is based on an operation of the steering wheel performed by the driver.”)
NOTE: Claim 10 recites the following contingent limitation: “…wherein the differential braking control is performed until the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold in a direction in which the subject vehicle intends to be controlled”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its condition in claim 9 is met (“…wherein the differential braking control is performed…”). This limitation only needs to be performed if the control performed in claim 9 is the differential braking control. Furthermore, if the control performed in claim 9 is the differential acceleration control or if the control initiated in claim 8 is the steering control, then this limitation does not need to be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 10 does not require this limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama additionally teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the method defined in claim 1. (See at least [0167]: “The braking control unit 100 and the steering control unit 200 illustrated in FIG. 1 are implementable by circuitry including at least one semiconductor integrated circuit such as at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)), at least one application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and/or at least one field programmable gate array (FPGA). At least one processor is configurable, by reading instructions from at least one machine readable non-transitory tangible medium, to perform all or a part of functions of the braking control unit 100 and the steering control unit 200…”)
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Labarbera and further in view of Sugai of US 20180099677 A1, filed 04/05/2016, hereinafter “Sugai”.
Regarding claim 4, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold.
Sugai teaches:
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold. (See at least [0072]: “According to the vehicle orientation control device hereinabove described, the allocation ratio varying unit 27a of the yaw moment control unit 27, when the detected actual yaw rate γ is within the predetermined range (−γ.sub.2≤γ≤γ.sub.1) in which the positive and negative of the sign inverts, continuously change the front and rear allocation ratio of the yaw moment control torque to be allocated to the front and rear wheels 3 and 2 in dependence on the detected yaw rate γ…”)
NOTE: Claim 4 recites the following contingent limitation: “…wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its condition in claim 2 is met (“…wherein the differential acceleration control is performed…”). This limitation only needs to be performed if the control performed in claim 2 is the differential acceleration control. Furthermore, if the control performed in claim 2 is the differential braking control or if the control initiated in claim 1 is the steering control, then this limitation does not need to be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 4 does not require this limitation.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Sugai’s technique of the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold. Doing so would be obvious to “continuously change the front and rear allocation ratio of the yaw moment control torque to be allocated to the front and rear wheels” (See [0072] of Sugai).
Regarding claim 11, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold.
Sugai teaches:
wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold. (See at least [0072]: “According to the vehicle orientation control device hereinabove described, the allocation ratio varying unit 27a of the yaw moment control unit 27, when the detected actual yaw rate γ is within the predetermined range (−γ.sub.2≤γ≤γ.sub.1) in which the positive and negative of the sign inverts, continuously change the front and rear allocation ratio of the yaw moment control torque to be allocated to the front and rear wheels 3 and 2 in dependence on the detected yaw rate γ…”)
NOTE: Claim 11 recites the following contingent limitation: “…wherein the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps that are only required to be performed if its condition in claim 9 is met (“…wherein the differential acceleration control is performed…”). This limitation only needs to be performed if the control performed in claim 9 is the differential acceleration control. Furthermore, if the control performed in claim 9 is the differential braking control or if the control initiated in claim 8 is the steering control, then this limitation does not need to be performed. Therefore, the BRI of claim 11 does not require this limitation.
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s apparatus with Sugai’s technique of the differential acceleration control is performed until a variation in the yaw rate value is more than or equal to a threshold. Doing so would be obvious to “continuously change the front and rear allocation ratio of the yaw moment control torque to be allocated to the front and rear wheels” (See [0072] of Sugai).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, and 14 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Labarbera and further in view of Newman of US 20190315345 A1, filed 10/01/2018, hereinafter “Newman”.
Regarding claim 5, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of the subject vehicle is based on driving information on the following vehicle.
Newman teaches:
wherein the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of the subject vehicle is based on driving information on the following vehicle. (See at least [0010]: “…For actual emergency situations, the subject vehicle may include an automatic intervention system to avoid or mitigate imminent collisions wherein the emergency intervention system, unlike the potential-hazard avoidance system, can control all of the subject vehicle's motion controls including the brakes, steering, and throttle in an emergency…” & [0056]: “As yet another example, the processor may determine that a potential hazard has become an emergency when a second vehicle enters the front or back threat zone while traveling at a speed sufficiently different from the subject vehicle that a collision may occur in a short time such as a few seconds. The threshold to declare an emergency based on the speed differential may be different for a front-encroachment and a back-encroachment since a tailgater presumably already knows that he is coming up to the subject vehicle, but a slow leading vehicle often is unaware of the imminent collision from behind. As an example, a second vehicle in the front threat zone and traveling at least a predetermined speed, such as 20 kph, slower than the subject vehicle may constitute an emergency, while a second vehicle in the back-threat zone may become an emergency if the tailgater is traveling at least another predetermined speed, such as 40 kph, faster than the subject vehicle. As a further alternative, the threshold for declaring an emergency may depend on the distance between vehicles as well as the speed differential. For example, a threshold based on time-to-collision may trigger the emergency response. In an exemplary embodiment, the processor may be configured to initiate the potential-hazard avoidance mitigation if the time-to-collision is less than a first predetermined time such as 10 seconds, and to initiate an emergency intervention if the time-to-collision is less than a second predetermined time such as 1 second.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control being based on driving information on the following vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Regarding claim 7, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
comprising, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and
based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle.
Newman teaches:
comprising, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle. (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Regarding claim 12, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of the subject vehicle is based on driving information on the following vehicle.
Newman teaches:
wherein the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control of the subject vehicle is based on driving information on the following vehicle. (See at least [0010]: “…For actual emergency situations, the subject vehicle may include an automatic intervention system to avoid or mitigate imminent collisions wherein the emergency intervention system, unlike the potential-hazard avoidance system, can control all of the subject vehicle's motion controls including the brakes, steering, and throttle in an emergency…” & [0056]: “As yet another example, the processor may determine that a potential hazard has become an emergency when a second vehicle enters the front or back threat zone while traveling at a speed sufficiently different from the subject vehicle that a collision may occur in a short time such as a few seconds. The threshold to declare an emergency based on the speed differential may be different for a front-encroachment and a back-encroachment since a tailgater presumably already knows that he is coming up to the subject vehicle, but a slow leading vehicle often is unaware of the imminent collision from behind. As an example, a second vehicle in the front threat zone and traveling at least a predetermined speed, such as 20 kph, slower than the subject vehicle may constitute an emergency, while a second vehicle in the back-threat zone may become an emergency if the tailgater is traveling at least another predetermined speed, such as 40 kph, faster than the subject vehicle. As a further alternative, the threshold for declaring an emergency may depend on the distance between vehicles as well as the speed differential. For example, a threshold based on time-to-collision may trigger the emergency response. In an exemplary embodiment, the processor may be configured to initiate the potential-hazard avoidance mitigation if the time-to-collision is less than a first predetermined time such as 10 seconds, and to initiate an emergency intervention if the time-to-collision is less than a second predetermined time such as 1 second.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of the steering control, differential braking control, or differential acceleration control being based on driving information on the following vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Regarding claim 14, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is configured to, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determine whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and
based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle.
Newman teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determine whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle. (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and based on determining that no forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Labarbera and Newman and further in view of Jung of US 20190391582 A1, filed 09/06/2019, hereinafter “Jung”.
Regarding claim 6, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time,
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle.
Newman teaches:
further comprising, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle (See at least [0042]: “…If the second vehicle is just ahead of the side threat zone and suddenly changes lanes in front of the subject vehicle, the second vehicle would miss the subject vehicle but would be too close for safety, at which time (if not sooner) the subject vehicle may recognize a potential hazard for front-end collision and may invoke a gradual deceleration to allow more space to open up between it and the second vehicle…” & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration based on determining that the forward vehicle exists. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Akiyama, Labarbera, and Newman in combination do not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time,
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle.
Jung teaches:
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time, (See at least [0232]: “…When the preceding vehicle 2000 is located in the collision reserve section and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a section other than the collision reserve section and the collision danger section, the adaptive driving controller 1950 decelerates the host vehicle 1000 corresponding to the speed of the preceding vehicle 2000…” See also [0231] regarding determining if a preceding vehicle or following vehicle is in a collision reserve section or collision danger section based on a respective time to collision.)
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and (See at least [0231]: “The collision determiner 1970 may determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision reserve section based on the time to collision, or determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision danger section. That is, the collision determiner 1970 may determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision reserve section if the time to collision is less than a first collision setting time and is equal to or more than a second collision setting time, and determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision danger section if the time to collision is less than the second collision setting time. In this case, the first collision setting time may be set to be a value larger than the second collision setting time.”)
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle. (See at least [0231]: “The collision determiner 1970 may determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision reserve section based on the time to collision, or determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision danger section. That is, the collision determiner 1970 may determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision reserve section if the time to collision is less than a first collision setting time and is equal to or more than a second collision setting time, and determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision danger section if the time to collision is less than the second collision setting time. In this case, the first collision setting time may be set to be a value larger than the second collision setting time.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama, Labarbera, and Newman’s method with Jung’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on the expected collision time being less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time. Doing so would be obvious “to reduce the possibility of accidents and improve the reliability of products by performing the adaptive avoidance driving in consideration of the information on the approaching vehicles tracked for a predetermined time” (See [0033] of Jung).
Regarding claim 13, Akiyama and Labarbera in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Akiyama and Labarbera in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is configured to, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determine whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time,
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle.
Newman teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to, before the collision with the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle: determine whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle in response that criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied; and (See at least Fig. 5 & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4. But if either the back-threat zone or back watch zone is not clear, the processor may then determine 505 whether the front is clear. If so, then the processor may proceed to carry out a gradual acceleration to draw past the second vehicle. Advantageously, the gradual acceleration may also draw the subject vehicle farther from the traffic that was detected in the back.”)
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle (See at least [0042]: “…If the second vehicle is just ahead of the side threat zone and suddenly changes lanes in front of the subject vehicle, the second vehicle would miss the subject vehicle but would be too close for safety, at which time (if not sooner) the subject vehicle may recognize a potential hazard for front-end collision and may invoke a gradual deceleration to allow more space to open up between it and the second vehicle…” & [0102]: “If there is a second vehicle in either of the left-front or right-front sectors, the processor may then check whether the back-threat zone and/or the back-watch zone is clear 503, and thereby determine whether conditions are safe to decelerate. If the back-threat zone and back watch zone are clear, the processor may perform a gradual deceleration 504, preferably according to the gradual procedure of FIG. 4…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama and Labarbera’s method with Newman’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle in front of the subject vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration based on determining that the forward vehicle exists. Doing so would be obvious “to prevent vehicle collisions by resolving potential hazards before they become imminent collisions” (See Abstract of Newman).
Akiyama, Labarbera, and Newman in combination do not explicitly teach:
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time,
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle.
Jung teaches:
based on determining that the forward vehicle exists, control acceleration of the subject vehicle based on target acceleration of the subject vehicle based on that an expected collision time to collide with the following vehicle is less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time, (See at least [0232]: “…When the preceding vehicle 2000 is located in the collision reserve section and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a section other than the collision reserve section and the collision danger section, the adaptive driving controller 1950 decelerates the host vehicle 1000 corresponding to the speed of the preceding vehicle 2000…” See also [0231] regarding determining if a preceding vehicle or following vehicle is in a collision reserve section or collision danger section based on a respective time to collision.)
wherein the first time is a collision control reference time to avoid the collision with the following vehicle, and (See at least [0231]: “The collision determiner 1970 may determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision reserve section based on the time to collision, or determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision danger section. That is, the collision determiner 1970 may determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision reserve section if the time to collision is less than a first collision setting time and is equal to or more than a second collision setting time, and determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision danger section if the time to collision is less than the second collision setting time. In this case, the first collision setting time may be set to be a value larger than the second collision setting time.”)
wherein the second time is an expected collision time to collide with the forward vehicle. (See at least [0231]: “The collision determiner 1970 may determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision reserve section based on the time to collision, or determine that at least one of the preceding vehicle 2000 and the following vehicle 3000 is located in a collision danger section. That is, the collision determiner 1970 may determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision reserve section if the time to collision is less than a first collision setting time and is equal to or more than a second collision setting time, and determine that the corresponding vehicle is located in the collision danger section if the time to collision is less than the second collision setting time. In this case, the first collision setting time may be set to be a value larger than the second collision setting time.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Akiyama, Labarbera, and Newman’s method with Jung’s technique of determining whether there is a forward vehicle after criteria for collision control to avoid the collision with the following vehicle are satisfied and controlling acceleration of the subject vehicle based on the expected collision time being less than or equal to a minimum value of a first time and a second time. Doing so would be obvious “to reduce the possibility of accidents and improve the reliability of products by performing the adaptive avoidance driving in consideration of the information on the approaching vehicles tracked for a predetermined time” (See [0033] of Jung).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662