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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 6, 11, 16, and 19 have been cancelled. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 9/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s Remarks filed on 9/21/2025; “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant’s argument according to the applicant’s Remark, page 8, with respect to the rejections of claim 4, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been considered but it is not persuasive. The office had rejected claims 4, 9, and 15, (See Non-Final Office Action filed on 06/20/2025), as being indefinite because the term “expected deceleration distance” used in the claims has not been defined according to the instant specification, which renders the claims indefinite. Applicant argued that the aforementioned term is supported and definite in light of the specification, however, the office, respectfully, disagrees. Applicant relied on the description of the term “expected deceleration amount” in the specification to define term “expected deceleration distance”. Although, the term “expected deceleration distance distribution” has been calculated using the “expected deceleration amount distribution” (according to claim 4), however, this limitation doesn’t recite any clear definition of term “expected deceleration distance”. Therefore, the definition of term “expected deceleration distance” is indefinite according to the instant application. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the exact definition of the term, as the “expected deceleration distance” can have different definition according to the context of an application and it is not a standard, formally defined technical term. For example, expected deceleration distance can refer to a braking/stopping distance or it can refer to the distance the driver needs to stop the vehicle before collision or before entering the safety distance between two vehicles. Therefore, the definition of the term “expected deceleration distance” is not clear which renders the claims indefinite. Applicant refers to claim 4 to define the term (Applicant’s Remarks, 09/21/2025, page 8), however, claim 4 does not give a clear definition of the term. Also, applicant defines the term in the Remarks, (09/21/2025, Page 8), as “the distance that the vehicle is expected to travel from the moment deceleration begins until the moment it ends based on the expected deceleration amount”, however, this definition is neither provided in the specification nor in the claims. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims 4, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) maintains.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 9/21/2025, see pages 9-12 “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C § § 102 and 103”, with respect to claim 1 (and similar claim 12), as currently amended, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues, Page 10 of Remarks, that Koji refers to a “road surface µ gradient” without defining the term, therefore it doesn’t correspond to the claimed “road surface coefficient distribution”. The argument is not persuasive because µ is the road surface friction coefficient according to at least paragraph [0007] of Koji. Therefore, as previously mapped in the rejection of claim 1, this id the office stance “road surface µ gradient” reads on “road surface friction coefficient distribution” as recited in the claim.
Applicant has currently amended claim 1 to encompass the features of claim 6 that were previously rejected over Alvarez and Kwan, respectfully. With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Koji fails to discuss the risk of collision with rear vehicle (Previously recited in claim 6). However, Koji was replied upon for the rejection of the features of calculating a forward collision risk, but not the risk of collision with rear vehicle (as previously was recited in claim 6, currently in amended claim 1). Similarly, Alvarez was relied upon to the teaching of the risk of collision with the rear vehicle not the front vehicle. Applicant is reminded that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, applicant’s argument with respect to the rejection of the limitation recited previously in claim 11 (currently cancelled), which is now recited in amended claim 1, has been considered but it is not persuasive. Particularly, applicant argues that Kwan does not disclose or suggest “when the forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold and the rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold, transferring control authority of the own vehicle to a driver of the own vehicle.”. Applicant argues that Kwan merely list various scenarios but does not compare each of the forward collision risk and the rear collision risk separately with the different thresholds. The argument is not, respectfully, persuasive. Kwan teaches determining the risk of collision with a preceding vehicle and a risk of collision with a following vehicle based on the classified collision risk level (low, medium, high), according to, for example, paragraphs [0025], [0029], and [0080]. Although, Kwan doesn’t explicitly talk about a threshold (or different thresholds) for risk of collision with the front and rear vehicle, however, Kwan teaches categorizing the risk level of collision as high, low and medium which reads on having different thresholds. This is the office stance that the collision risk being greater or equal than a threshold as recited in the claim is mapped by determining the collision risk levels (low, medium, high). Furthermore, Kwan teaches the determination of shifting the vehicle authority to the driver based on the risk of collision which meets the aforementioned claim limitation as previously recited in claim 11 (currently recited in claim 1). Also, the fact that the levels of risk are dependent on the risk being front risk or back risk shows that they are different thresholds and the comparison happens naturally in the determination of whether authority can be shifted based on the risk level. For more clarity, in addition to previously cited paragraphs of Kwan in the rejection of claim 6 in non-final office action filed on 06/20/2025, applicant is referred to Tables 6-8 and 10 and at least paragraph [0128] of Kwan. Table 7 Shows that the driver's proficiency is at a Level 1 or 2 (Driver authority) when the Risk of accident/collision occurrence is greater than or equal to level 3. Although that is technically when the risk is lower the level (threshold) is higher. Therefore, when the risk of accident occurrence (as determined by tables 2-4) is greater than or equal to level 2 the driver is given control authority in alignment with Table 10.
Accordingly, due to the amendment, the rejection of claim 1 has been updated under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to include the limitations, as previously rejected in claims 6 and 11, that have been integrated into claim (See final office action below).
Applicant’s arguments according the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-9, 10, 12, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 are merely statements of disagreement and no supporting reasoning have been provided. This is the office stance that all rejection has been properly applied.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims use the terms “expected deceleration distance” and it is not clear to the examiner what the exact definition of this term is, according to the instant context of the application. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, the definition of term “expected deceleration distance” is considered as the minimum distance required to stop safely without colliding with another vehicle or braking/stopping distance.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji et al., JP2002067843A, hereinafter “Koji”, in view Alvarez et al., US 20210300418 A1, hereinafter “Alvarez”, further in view of Kwan et al., US-20230234618-A1, hereinafter “Kwan”.
Regarding claim 1, Koji, discloses a method for estimating a collision risk according to a road environment performed by at least one processor ([0002], [0060], __It’s obvious that the steps processes in the control unit, performed by processor__), the method comprising: estimating a road surface friction coefficient distribution using at least one sensor ([0006], [0021], “the road surface μ gradient estimation unit 13 […] by the sensor 2,”); calculating an expected deceleration amount distribution of an own vehicle according to the road environment using the estimated road surface friction coefficient distribution and an expected deceleration amount of the own vehicle ([0006], “calculating a maximum deceleration that can be generated based on the estimated road μ gradient.”, __calculating the maximum deceleration based on the gradient of the friction reads on calculating the distribution of the deceleration amount that occurs by calculating different values (gradient) of the road friction coefficients according to the condition of the road along the driving path __) calculating a forward safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and a forward vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle (Abstract: “calculates the collision marginal […] distance on the basis of the speeds, accelerations, and max. decelerations of the vehicle concerned and another vehicle as applicable.”, [0007], “calculates […] the collision margin distance based on […] the maximum deceleration.”, [0006], “a collision margin distance that is the distance necessary to avoid a collision with the obstacle”, __ collision margin distance as recited in the reference reads on the forward safety distance and it calculates base on the maximum deceleration which is calculated based on the gradient of the road friction coefficient__ ); and calculating a forward collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle based on the calculated forward safety distance distribution ([0002], “assess the risk of collision based on the distance to a preceding vehicle or obstacle”, [0011], “means determines the risk of collision with the obstacle”, __obstacle refers to other vehicles in front of the host/own vehicle, according to [0007]__).
As also noted in the above paragraphs, Koji discloses the claimed features for assessing the risk of collision with the forward vehicle (See paragraph 18 of the present office action), however, Koji doesn’t explicitly teach the claimed corresponding features for assessing the risk of collision between rear vehicle and the own vehicle. In detail, Koji doesn’t teach calculating an expected deceleration amount distribution of a rear vehicle according to the road environment using the estimated road surface friction coefficient distribution and an expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle; calculating a rear safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle; calculating a rear collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the calculated rear safety distance distribution;
Nevertheless, Alvarez teaches calculating an expected deceleration amount of a rear vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “each vehicle's velocity (e.g., the rear (enforcing) vehicle (v.sub.rear) and the front vehicle (v.sub.front),”, “each vehicle's possible longitudinal minimum deceleration”, __each vehicle includes rear vehicle__) ; calculating a rear safety distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “minimum safe longitudinal distance”, __minimum safe longitudinal distance for rear vehicle reads on rear safety distance__); and calculating a rear collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the calculated rear safety distance distribution ([0050], “This longitudinal minimum distance may alternatively be abbreviated herein as “dlo_min,” and may be used by an AV to avoid hitting another vehicle from behind while traveling in the same direction”, [0067])
Koji in view of Alvarez doesn’t explicitly teach when the forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold and the rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold, transferring control authority of the own vehicle to a driver of the own vehicle.
Nevertheless, Kwan teaches when the forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold and the rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold, transferring control authority of the own vehicle to a driver of the own vehicle ([0011], “granting the vehicle control authority to a driver”, [0029], [0074], [0078], [0079], [0080]-[0081], [0128] Tables 6-8 and 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collision prevention control device as taught by Koji to include calculating safety parameters like safety distance for both rear and forward safety distance as taught by Alvarez, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of collision between the own vehicle and both the front and the rear vehicle. Further it would have been obvious to include the collision prevention control device as taught by modified Koji with the control system that transfer the vehicle control to the driver when there is a risk of both rear and forward collision, as taught by Kwan, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the safety of the system by transferring the control to a real person capable of making decision according the road condition and reducing the risk of collision.
Regarding claim 4, Koji discloses wherein the calculating of the forward safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle (See the rejection of claim 1) comprises: calculating an expected deceleration distance distribution of the own vehicle using the expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle( [0075], “sets a safe stopping distance D0, which is the minimum distance required to stop safely without colliding with another vehicle, etc., based on the maximum possible deceleration calculated in step ST31”, __under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner a safe stopping distance as recited in the reference reads on expected deceleration distance and setting a safe stopping distance reads on calculating expected deceleration distance which is calculated based on the maximum possible deceleration, calculated in step ST31, which reads on using the expected deceleration amount distribution__ ); and calculating the forward safety distance distribution using a driving distance of the own vehicle during a reaction time, the expected deceleration distance distribution of the own vehicle, and a deceleration distance of the forward vehicle. (Abstract: “calculates the collision […] distance on the basis of the speeds, accelerations, and max. decelerations of the vehicle concerned and another vehicle as applicable.”, [0007], “calculates […] the collision margin distance based on […] the maximum deceleration.”, [0016]- [0017] __Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, collision margin distance as recited in the reference reads on the forward safety distance in the claim. According to the reference the collision margin distance is calculated based on the maximum deceleration (which is calculated based on the gradient of the road friction coefficient) and it reads on the recited feature in the claim__, [0062], “calculates the relative distance to other vehicles etc. based on the detection output of the distance measuring sensor 1 (step ST6), and further differentiates this with respect to time to calculate the relative speed to other vehicles etc. (step ST7).” ).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Borgeson et al., in “Sensor data fusion for road friction estimation”, https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/127242.pdf hereinafter “Borgeson”, or in alternative, in view of Roy, US 20230256972 A1, hereinafter “Roy”.
Regarding claim 2, Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan discloses the method of claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), however, modified Koji doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the estimating of the road surface friction coefficient distribution using the at least one sensor comprises estimating a first road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the first sensor and estimating a second road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the second sensor.
However, Borgeson teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the estimating of the road surface friction coefficient distribution using the at least one sensor comprises estimating a first road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the first sensor and estimating a second road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the second sensor. (e.g., Abstract, “sensor fusion method for tire-to-road friction estimation able to handle several information sources.”, Page 1, Section 1 Introduction: “With the increasing number of information sources available in today’s cars this project aims at merging direct estimations with information from road surface sensors to a reliable continuous estimate of the road friction.”, Page 1, Section 1.1 Purpose: “use information from several sensor sources to merge data into a continuous estimate of the tire-to-road friction coefficient”, “to produce an optimal tire-to-road friction estimate”)
Further, in alternative rejection, Roy teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a first sensor and a second sensor, and the estimating of the road surface friction coefficient distribution using the at least one sensor comprises estimating a first road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the first sensor and estimating a second road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the second sensor (Abstract, [0007], [0073], __the reference applies different sensors and process the signals to generate an estimated instantaneous coefficient of friction based on the reliability of the sensors. Also, the reference estimates the instantaneous coefficient of friction over the time while driving, which reads on friction coefficient distribution__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision prevention control device as taught by modified Koji with plurality of sensors (to estimate the friction coefficient) as taught by Borgeson or Roy, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the results of estimated friction coefficient distribution according to the environment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, in view of Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Borgeson (or Roy, in alternative rejection), further in view of Kim et al., US 20240061424 A1, hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 3, Koji in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the method of claim 2 (See rejection of claim 2), and Koji discloses wherein the calculating of the expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle according to the road environment using the estimated road surface friction coefficient distribution and the expected deceleration amount of the own vehicle (See rejection for claim 1)
However, Koji doesn’t teach that the calculating of expected deceleration amount distribution comprises calculating a first expected deceleration amount distribution according to the first road surface friction coefficient distribution, and calculating a second expected deceleration amount distribution according to the second road surface friction coefficient distribution; and calculating the expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle by combining the first expected deceleration amount distribution and the second expected deceleration amount distribution based on reliability of the first sensor and the second sensor.
However, Kim teaches a first expected deceleration amount, and calculating a second expected deceleration; and calculating the expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle by combining the first expected deceleration amount distribution and the second expected deceleration amount distribution based on reliability of the first sensor and the second sensor. (e.g., [0022], “control a braking amount or a deceleration amount of the vehicle based on the first sensor fusion track or the second sensor fusion track.”, claim 3, __the deceleration amount calculated based on the reliability results of the sensors with highest reliability__)
It would have been obvious to have modified the collision prevention control device as taught by modified Koji in view of prior arts relied upon which comprises calculating the expected deceleration amount distribution of the vehicle based on the gradient of the road friction coefficient to include using plurality of sensors and calculate deceleration amount of the vehicle based on the first sensor fusion track or the second sensor fusion track and then calculate the maximum deceleration amount based on the highest reliability of sensors (reads on “combining” as recited in the claim), as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of results of calculated deceleration amount of own vehicle and improving the road/driving safety by lowering collision risk.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Ravuri et al., US 20230415647 A1, hereinafter “Ravuri”.
Regarding claim 5, Koji discloses further comprising: when the calculated forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold value ([0012], “risk level is below the predetermined threshold level, that risk level is met”, [0073], “performs control so as to prevent a collision with another vehicle, etc. according to that degree of risk.”, [0058], “the control start/end and control amount setting unit 16 judges whether at least one of the collision margin time and collision margin distance is less than a predetermined threshold value or whether both are equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value”), however, Koji doesn’t teach regenerating a movement trajectory by reducing a driving speed of the own vehicle.
However, Ravuri, teaches regenerating a movement trajectory by reducing a driving speed of the own vehicle. (claim 12 and 26)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system as taught by Koji with the step of reducing the vehicle speed when there is a high risk of collision as taught by Ravuri, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of rear-end collision.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, in view Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Tournabien et al., US 20200377115 A1, hereinafter “Tournabien”.
Regarding claim 10, Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan teacheds the method of claim 1 (See rejections for claim 1), however Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan doesn’t explicitly teach when the calculated rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by increasing a driving speed of the own vehicle.
Nevertheless, Tournabien teaches when the calculated rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by increasing a driving speed of the own vehicle. ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision prevention control device, as taught by Koji in view of Alvarez with the control system to update/regenerate the movement by increasing the speed of the vehicle as taught by Tournabien, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of the vehicle in order to prevent the collision.
Regarding claim 12, Koji discloses a method for estimating a collision risk according to a road environment performed by at least one processor, the method comprising: estimating a road surface friction coefficient distribution using at least one sensor (see the rejection for claim 1); however, koji doesn’t explicitly disclose calculating an expected deceleration amount distribution of a rear vehicle according to the road environment using the estimated road surface friction coefficient distribution and an expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle; calculating a rear safety distance distribution between an own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle; and calculating a rear collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the calculated rear safety distance distribution.
However, Koji discloses all of the underline similar limitations (as recited in claim 12) but with respect to own vehicle (instead of rear vehicle) and forward collision risk (instead of rear collision risk), as recited in claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1).
Nevertheless, Alvarez teaches calculating an expected deceleration amount of a rear vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “each vehicle's velocity (e.g., the rear (enforcing) vehicle (v.sub.rear) and the front vehicle (v.sub.front),”, “each vehicle's possible longitudinal minimum deceleration”, __each vehicle includes rear vehicle__); calculating a rear safety distance between an own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “minimum safe longitudinal distance”); and calculating a rear collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the calculated rear safety distance ([0050], “This longitudinal minimum distance […] may be used by an AV to avoid hitting another vehicle from behind while traveling in the same direction”, [0067])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collision prevention control device as taught by Koji to include calculating safety parameters like safety distance for both rear and forward safety distance as taught by Alvarez, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of collision between the own vehicle and both the front and the rear vehicle.
Further, Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan doesn’t explicitly teach when the calculated rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by increasing a driving speed of the own vehicle.
Nevertheless, Tournabien teaches when the calculated rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by increasing a driving speed of the own vehicle. ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision prevention control device, as taught by Koji in view of Alvarez and Kwan with the control system to update/regenerate the movement by increasing the speed of the vehicle as taught by Tournabien, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the controlling of the vehicle in order to prevent the collision.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, in view Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Nilsson et al., US 20230119295 A1; and Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji, in view Alvarez and Kwan further in view of Tournabien, further in view of Nilsson.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Koji in view of prior arts relied upon teaches the methods of claim 1 and 12, however, the aforementioned references don’t explicitly teach determining a viewing range of the rear vehicle using the at least one sensor; and calculating a reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle corresponding to the determined viewing range.
Nevertheless, Nilsson teaches determining a viewing range of the rear vehicle using the at least one sensor ([0082], “determine the visual or detectable range to parking position”, [0083], “Visual range detection by radar and LIDAR sensors”); and calculating a reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle corresponding to the determined viewing range ([0094], “calculate reaction time”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision prevention control device. as taught by Koji in view of Alvarez, with the step of determining the viewing range and reaction time as taught by Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the road/driving safety by improving the accuracy of the collision prevention system in assessing the risk of collision between the vehicle and a following/preceding vehicle.
Regarding claim 8 and 14, the arts relied upon discloses the method of claim 7 and 13 (See reactions for claim 7 and 13), however, although Koji discloses the similar features as in claim 8 and 14 but with respect to “the forward safety distance”, and “expected deceleration amount distribution of the forward vehicle” (as recited in claim 4, See rejection of claim 4) instead of, respectively, “the rear safety distance”, and “expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle”, but, Koji doesn’t explicitly teaches wherein the calculating of the rear safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle comprises: calculating the rear safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle and the reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle.
Nevertheless, Alvarez teaches wherein calculating of the rear safety distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle comprises: calculating the rear safety distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle and the reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle. ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “These longitudinal and lateral distances are a function of each vehicle's velocity (e.g., the rear (enforcing) vehicle (v.sub.rear) and the front vehicle (v.sub.front),”, “each vehicle's possible longitudinal minimum deceleration”, “minimum safe longitudinal distance”, __each vehicle includes rear vehicle__)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collision prevention control device as taught by Koji to include calculating safety parameters like safety distance for both rear and forward safety distance as taught by Alvarez, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of collision between the own vehicle and both the front and the rear vehicle.
Regarding claim 9 and 15, the prior art relied upon teaches the method of claim 8 and 14 (See the rejections of claim 8 and 14), however, although Koji discloses the similar features as in claim 9 and 15 but with respect to “the forward safety distance”, and “expected deceleration amount distribution of the forward vehicle” (as recited in claim 4, See rejection of claim 4) instead of, respectively, “the rear safety distance”, and “expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle”, but, Koji doesn’t explicitly teach calculating an expected deceleration distance distribution of the rear vehicle using the expected deceleration amount distribution of the rear vehicle; calculating a driving distance of the rear vehicle during a reaction time using the reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle; and calculating the rear safety distance distribution using the driving distance of the rear vehicle during the reaction time, the expected deceleration distance distribution of the rear vehicle, and a deceleration distance of the own vehicle.
Nevertheless, Alvarez teaches the calculating of the rear safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle using the expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle and the reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle comprises: calculating an expected deceleration distance of the rear vehicle using the expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, __under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, an expected deceleration amount of the rear vehicle is the minimum braking/decelerating distance before the rear vehicle stops. According to egn. 1, the third term on the right side of the equation (v.rear +rho*a.long)^2 / 2 a.long, min, brake) reads on expected deceleration distance, the top of the equation is taking the current travel speed of the rear vehicle and then adding a worst case scenario (that the rear vehicle was accelerating at a maximum capability before realizing it needs to brake) and then dividing by the weakest possible braking acceleration for the rear vehicle__ ); calculating a driving distance of the rear vehicle during a reaction time using the reaction time distribution of the rear vehicle ([0021], [0030], [0047], “the brake reaction time of the driver of the rear vehicle and the distance between the target vehicle and the rear vehicle.”); and calculating the rear safety distance distribution using the driving distance of the rear vehicle during the reaction time, the expected deceleration distance distribution of the rear vehicle, and a deceleration distance of the own vehicle ([0036] and Eqn. 1, “minimum safe longitudinal distance”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the collision prevention control device. as taught by Koji in view of Alvarez, with the step of determining the viewing range and reaction time as taught by Nilsson, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the road/driving safety by improving the accuracy of the collision prevention system in assessing the risk of collision between the vehicle and a following/preceding vehicle.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al., US 10703373 B2, hereinafter “Fernando”, in view of Song et al., US 20240351615 A1, hereinafter “Song”, further in view of Koji, Alvarez and Kwan.
Regarding claim 17, Fernando discloses a vehicle system comprising (Col 2, Lines 44-47, “vehicle system”, Line 54, “vehicle control system”): at least one sensor configured to collect sensing information for determining at least a part of a road surface friction coefficient and a viewing range according to a road environment (Col 4, Lines 1-18, Col 7, Lines 42-51, “friction coefficient”, Col 8, Lines 12-23, “Visibility can be measured from high resolution camera sensor” ); an electronic control device (Col 3, Line 37, “electronic controller units (ECUs)”) configured to calculate at least a part of a forward safety distance distribution between an own vehicle and a forward vehicle and a rear safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and a rear vehicle based on the sensing information obtained from the at least one sensor (Col 4, Line 64-67, __longitudinal distance between the vehicle and the proximate vehicle reads on forward or rear safety distance depending on proximate vehicle being in front or rear of the vehicle according to Col 2, Lines 60-62__);
Fernando doesn’t explicitly teach a driving unit configured to, when a movement trajectory of the own vehicle is generated by the electronic control device, drive the vehicle based on the generated movement trajectory.
However, Song teaches a driving unit configured to, when a movement trajectory of the own vehicle is generated by the electronic control device, drive the vehicle based on the generated movement trajectory ([0014], “updating a longitudinal trajectory of the specified vehicle”, [0134]- [0136]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control device, as taught by Fernando, to include a driving unit to drive the vehicle based on the movement trajectory from the controller, as taught by Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the control of the vehicle and its maneuverability in order to prevent the collision with the front/rear vehicle.
Further modified Fernando doesn’t teach wherein the electronic control device is configured to: calculate a forward collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle based on the forward safety distance distribution; calculate a rear collision risk according to a current distance between the own vehicle and the rear vehicle based on the calculated rear safety distance distribution; and when the forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold and the rear collision risk is greater than or equal to a second threshold, transfer control authority of the own vehicle to a driver of the own vehicle.
However, Koji, Alvarez and Kwan teach the aforementioned limitations (above paragraph). See rejection of claim 1 for the rejection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the vehicle control device, as taught by Fernando in view of Song, to include calculating safety parameters like safety distance for both rear and forward safety distance as taught by Koji in view of Alvarez, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of collision between the own vehicle and both the front and the rear vehicle; and further modify it to include the control system that transfer the vehicle control to the driver when there is a risk of both rear and forward collision, as taught by Kwan, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the safety of the system by transferring the control to a real person capable of making decision according the road condition and reducing the risk of collision.
Regarding claim 18, modified Fernando teaches the electronic control device is configured to: estimate a road surface friction coefficient based on the sensing information; however, Fernando doesn’t explicitly disclose estimating a road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the sensing information.
Nevertheless, Koji teaches estimate a road surface friction coefficient distribution based on the sensing information ([0006], [0021], “the road surface μ gradient estimation unit 13 […] by the sensor 2,”); and calculate an expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle according to the road environment using the estimated road surface friction coefficient distribution and an expected deceleration amount of the own vehicle ([0006], “calculating a maximum deceleration that can be generated based on the estimated road μ gradient.”, __calculating the maximum deceleration based on the gradient of the friction reads on calculating the distribution of the deceleration amount that occurs by calculating different values (gradient) of the road friction coefficients according to the condition of the road along the driving path __); and calculate the forward safety distance distribution between the own vehicle and the forward vehicle using the calculated expected deceleration amount distribution of the own vehicle (Abstract: “calculates the collision marginal time and distance on the basis of the speeds, accelerations, and max. decelerations of the vehicle concerned and another vehicle as applicable.”, [0007], “calculates […] the collision margin distance based on […] the maximum deceleration.”, __collision margin distance as recited in the reference reads on the forward safety distance and it calculates base on the maximum deceleration which is calculated based on the gradient of the road friction coefficient__ ).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control device, as taught by Fernando in view of Song, to include calculating the road friction coefficient and the vehicle deceleration amount according to the friction coefficient, as taught by Song, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the accuracy of the system in assessing the risk of collision by considering the effect of different road conditions or environment on the deceleration and braking system of the vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando, in view of Song, Koji, Alvarez and Kwan, further in view of Ravuri.
Regarding claim 20, the references relied upon teaches the vehicle system of claim 19 (See rejection of claim 19, however, the references relied upon doesn’t teach wherein the electronic control device is configured to, when the calculated forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by reducing a driving speed of the own vehicle.
However, Ravuri, teaches wherein the electronic control device is configured to, when the calculated forward collision risk is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, regenerating a movement trajectory by reducing a driving speed of the own vehicle (claims 12 and 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle system as taught by Fernando in view of Song and Koji, with the step of reducing the vehicle speed when there is a high risk of collision as taught by Ravuri, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of increasing the driving/road safety by minimizing the risk of rear-end collision.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669