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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-15, 17-20 remain pending in the application. claim amendment overcomes the 101 rejection on record.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645).
Regarding claim 1 Kuehner teaches a vehicle control system for evasive steering maneuvers, the vehicle control system comprising ([0028] disclosing the system taking evasive maneuver by steering to avoid an imminent collision):
at least one forward object detector configured to detect one or more objects in a driving path of a vehicle ([0033]-[0037] disclosing detecting obstacles in the driving path of the vehicle);
a steering wheel configured to control a steering direction of the vehicle ([00025] disclosing a steering wheel to control the steering of the vehicle).
a vehicle user interface configured to display a visual indication to a driver and generate audio for the driver ([0028] disclosing a vehicle user interface to generate a display and audio); and a vehicle control module configured to ([0029] disclosing the processor):
identify, via the at least one forward object detector, an object in the driving path of the vehicle ([0033]-[0037] disclosing sensor to detect obstacles in the travel path. [0042]-[0045] and Figs. 6, 7 disclosing a disabled vehicle detected in the travel path of the vehicle);
Kuehner does not teach determining an estimated time to collision with the object, and in response to in response to estimated collision, generate an audio of a recommended steering maneuver by playing audio of a directional chime sound in a speaker on a side of the vehicle corresponding to the recommended evasive steering maneuver, applying steering torque to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver by rotating the steering wheel about a steering axis of the steering wheel and generate a haptic alert via vibration of a seat of the vehicle. However, Kuehner teaches determining a predicted collision and applying steering torque to the steering wheel ([0028]- [0033], [0042]-[0045] disclosing predicting an imminent collision and applying steering torque in the direction of avoidance, i.e., indicating the recommended evasive steering maneuver. [0025] disclosing applying a feedback torque to the steering wheel).
Yasui teaches generate an audio of a recommended steering maneuver (col. 11 lines 30-55 disclosing a recommended steering maneuver to the driver of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner to incorporate the teaching of Yasui of generate audio of a recommended steering maneuver in order to alert the driver of the vehicle to avoid a collision with an object col.11.
Fukui teaches by playing audio of a directional chime sound in a speaker on a side of the vehicle ([0015] disclosing a directional warning generated in a direction of a threat).
The combination of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui is obvious yielding predictable results in order to warn a driver in a certain direction thus indicating a direction of a threat as taught by Fukui, the direction being a direction of a threat or a recommended maneuver is an obvious design choice.
Ichinose teaches determining an estimated time to collision with the object, and in response to in response to estimated collision, applying steering torque to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver by rotating the steering wheel about a steering axis of the steering wheel ([0033]-[0037] disclosing determining an estimated time to collision being less than a threshold to determine a high collision risk and to determine a recommended direction for steering direction for evasive maneuver. [0044]-[0045] further disclose applying a steering torque to the steering wheel to indicate the evasive steering maneuver. It is interpreted that a steering wheel is rotated around an axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui to incorporate the teaching of Ichinose of determining an estimated time to collision with the object, and in response to in response to estimated collision, applying steering torque to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver by rotating the steering wheel about a steering axis of the steering wheel, the combination/substitution using time to collision in order to determine collision is obvious yielding predictable results and warning a user in order to avoid a collision as taught by Ichinose [0028]- [0033], [0042]-[0045]. Also the substitution of the warning method between a turning of a steering wheel and generation of an audio is obvious yielding predictable results and an obvious design choice and improving safety and increasing redundancy of the alert.
Examiner believes that Ichinose teaches the rotation of the steering wheel about an axis, however, Aritomi is cited as an additional reference.
Aritomi teaches to rotate the steering wheel about a steering axis of the steering wheel ([0068] disclosing rotating a steering shaft to rotate the steering wheel, i.e., the steering wheel rotates about an axis which is the steering shaft, see fig 8A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Ichinose to incorporate the teaching of Aritomi of to rotate the steering wheel about a steering axis of the steering wheel, it would have been obvious to try to rotate the steering wheel around an axis of a shaft with reasonable expectation of success.
Sasmal teaches generate a haptic alert via vibration of a seat ([0014] disclosing vibration of a seat ).
Sasmal discloses the combination of alerts and or substitution of one with another between audio/visual/tactile, thus the combination or substation of Sasmal haptic alert with the audio alert taught by Yasui and Fukui is obvious yielding predictable results and improving safety and for redundancy.
Regarding claim 4, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle includes a steer-by-wire vehicle steering apparatus (Kuehner [0020] disclosing steer by wire); and
the vehicle control module is configured to apply steering torque to the steering wheel only without applying steering torque to wheels of the vehicle (Kuehner [0025] disclosing applying a steering feedback torque to the steering wheel, i.e., not to the wheels of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle control module is configured to:
obtain one or more vehicle operating condition parameters via one or more vehicle sensors (Kuehner [0034]-[0036] disclosing a safety envelope based on vehicle sensors, and [0042]-[0047] disclosing detecting an angle of the steering wheel via vehicle sensors); and
determine a preferred steering direction for the recommended evasive steering maneuver, according to the one or more vehicle operating condition parameters, the preferred steering direction indicative of a left or right steering direction have a higher likelihood of safety compared to an opposite one of the left or right steering direction (Kuehner [0034]-[0036] disclosing a safety envelope based on vehicle sensors, and [0041]-[0047] disclosing detecting an angle of the steering wheel via vehicle sensors and determining a preferred steering direction to the left or right based on the vehicle condition parameters including the vehicles around the own vehicle and the steering angle of the vehicle determined by the steering wheel sensor).
Regarding claim 9 Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 8, wherein at least one the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, the audio alert of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, or the steering torque applied to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction.
Specifically, Ichinose teaches wherein at least one the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, the audio alert of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, or the steering torque applied to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction ([0033]-[0037] disclosing determining an estimated time to collision being less than a threshold to determine a high collision risk and to determine a recommended direction for steering direction for evasive maneuver. [0044]-[0045] further disclose applying a steering torque to the steering wheel to indicate the evasive steering maneuver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Ichinose of wherein at least one the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, the audio alert of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction, or the steering torque applied to the steering wheel to indicate the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes the preferred steering direction in order to avoid a collision as taught by Ichinose [0028]- [0033], [0042]-[0045] and provide the driver with a steering system showing the driver appropriate direction of steering operation in advance and correctly and shortening an operation time during collision [0006].
Regarding claim 10, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 8, wherein determining the preferred steering direction includes applying one or more hard constraints to the one or more vehicle operating condition parameters, each of the hard constraints indicative of a parameter value that prohibits selection of a steering direction (Kuehner [0041]-[0047] disclosing ignoring the parameters indicative of positive angle turning of the wheel when it is not safe to steer to the right direction, i.e., hard constraints on the angles).
Regarding claim 11, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 10, wherein the one or more hard constraints include at least one of a collision with a traffic threat, crossing of a hard barrier or non-drivable space, or current vehicle motion above a safe maneuver threshold value (Kuehner [0041]-[0047] disclosing the hard constraint includes a collision threat with a traffic threat when the vehicle turns in an unsafe direction).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4, see above rejection.
Claims 3, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645) and Kim (US20210380102).
Regarding claim 3, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle control module is configured to apply steering torque as a series of individual pulses which are spaced from one another over a time period.
Kim teaches wherein the vehicle control module is configured to apply steering torque as a series of individual pulses which are spaced from one another over a time period ([0014] disclosing periodic pulse shaped torque to steering device separated by intervals of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Kim of wherein the vehicle control module is configured to apply steering torque as a series of individual pulses which are spaced from one another over a time period in order to warn a driver about a collision by increasing and decreasing the interval between pulses as taught by Kim [0014]-[0015]. it is an obvious combination or substitution for warning a driver thus avoiding collision yielding predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3, see above rejection.
Claims 5, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645) and Ito (US20220266869).
Regarding claim 5, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle control module is configured to:
Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal does not teach determine whether the driver currently has at least one hand in contact with the steering wheel; and apply steering torque to the steering wheel only in response to a determination that the driver currently has at least one hand in contact with the steering wheel.
Ito teaches determine whether the driver currently has at least one hand in contact with the steering wheel and apply steering torque to the steering wheel only in response to a determination that the driver currently has at least one hand in contact with the steering wheel ([0006], [0031], [0051] disclosing applying an assist mode which will apply the steering assist to the steering wheel when the driver’s hand is on the wheel only).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Ito of apply steering torque to the steering wheel only in response to a determination that the driver currently has at least one hand in contact with the steering wheel in order to transition to a hands on mode gradually based on the road conditions as taught by Ito [0051].
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5, see above rejection.
Claims 6, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645) and Han (US20130166150).
Regarding claim 6, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein: Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal does not teach the vehicle control module is configured to, in response to the estimated time to collision being less than the specified time threshold, display the visual indication of a recommended evasive steering maneuver to the driver on a display of the vehicle user interface; and the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes a recommended steering direction for the recommended evasive steering maneuver. However, Kuehner as modified by Ichinose, specifically, Ichinose as taught in the rejection of claim 1 teaches the avoidance based on the TTC less than a threshold which indicates a collision [0033]-[0037].
Han teaches the vehicle control module is configured to, in response to the estimated time to collision display the visual indication of a recommended evasive steering maneuver to the driver on a display of the vehicle user interface ([0064] disclosing a displaying of the direction of avoidance to notify the driver to perform steering to avoid collision in response to a collision); and
the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes a recommended steering direction for the recommended evasive steering maneuver ([0051] disclosing an unavoidable front crash and to search for an avoidance. [0064] disclosing a displaying of the direction of avoidance to notify the driver to perform steering to avoid collision in response to a collision).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Han of the vehicle control module is configured to, in response to the estimated time to collision display the visual indication of a recommended evasive steering maneuver to the driver on a display of the vehicle user interface and the visual indication of the recommended evasive steering maneuver includes a recommended steering direction for the recommended evasive steering maneuver in order to assist the driver in determining a direction of avoidance that is safe as taught by Han [0064]. It would have been obvious to combine the detection technique of collisions of Ichinose using ttc less than threshold with the method of displaying the danger and direction of avoidance yielding predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6, see above rejection.
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645) and Rojas (US20230322208).
Regarding claim 12, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 8. Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal does not teach wherein determining the preferred steering direction includes applying one or more soft constraints to the one or more vehicle operating condition parameters, each of the soft constraints indicative of a parameter value indicative of lower likelihood of safety of a steering direction. However, Kuehner teaches a constraint on steering of the vehicle [0042]-[0057] disclosing the constraint on the steering angle of the vehicle.
Rojas teaches wherein determining the preferred steering direction includes applying one or more soft constraints to the one or more vehicle operating condition parameters, each of the soft constraints indicative of a parameter value indicative of lower likelihood of safety of a steering direction ([0288]-[0313] disclosing constraints that can be prioritized and relaxed such that the vehicle can turn to a side of the curb or an object other than a pedestrian to avoid colliding with a pedestrian).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Rojas of wherein determining the preferred steering direction includes applying one or more soft constraints to the one or more vehicle operating condition parameters, each of the soft constraints indicative of a parameter value indicative of lower likelihood of safety of a steering direction in order to avoid collision with a pedestrian who is more vulnerable thus improve safety of humans as taught by Rojas [0288]-[0313].
Regarding claim 13, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal and Rojas further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 12, wherein the one or more soft constraints include at least one of relative distance and motion from a traffic threat, a topology of a road on which the vehicle is travelling, and a current motion of the vehicle.
Specifically, Rojas teaches wherein the one or more soft constraints include at least one of relative distance and motion from a traffic threat, a topology of a road on which the vehicle is travelling, and a current motion of the vehicle ([0297]-[0311] disclosing the motion of the vehicle is changed to ride up on curb thus the motion of the vehicle is a soft constraint. [0311] disclosing the relaxed constraints include the relative distance with other objects and moving toward them, the other relaxed constraints include the deceleration and acceleration of the own vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal to incorporate the teaching of Rojas of wherein the one or more soft constraints include at least one of relative distance and motion from a traffic threat, a topology of a road on which the vehicle is travelling, and a current motion of the vehicle in order to avoid collision with a pedestrian who is more vulnerable thus improve safety of humans as taught by Rojas [0288]-[0313].
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kuehner (US20230264741) in view of Yasui (US12304465) and Fukui (US20230264663) and Ichinose (US20080255729) and Aritomi (US20240308579) and Sasmal (US20240367645) and Moshchuck (US20140032049).
Regarding claim 14, Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein:
the specified time threshold is a specified second time threshold (Ichinose teaches a TTC threshold, i.e. specified second time threshold [0033]-[0037]);
Kuehner as modified by Yasui and Fukui and Aritomi and Ichinose and Sasmal does not teach the vehicle control module is configured to initiate a forward collision alert in response to the estimated time to collision being less than a specified first time threshold; and the specified first time threshold is greater than the specified second time threshold.
Moshchuck teaches the vehicle control module is configured to initiate a forward collision alert in response to the estimated time to collision being less than a specified first time threshold ([0038]-[0043] disclosing a first and second TTC thresholds, wherein when a first TTC threshold is reached that is higher than a second TTC threshold, an alert is issued); and the specified first time threshold is greater than the specified second time threshold ([0038]-[0043] disclosing a first TTC threshold greater than a second TTC threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Kuehner as modified by Ichinose to incorporate the teaching of Moshchuck of the vehicle control module is configured to initiate a forward collision alert in response to the estimated time to collision being less than a specified first time threshold; and the specified first time threshold is greater than the specified second time threshold in order to warn a driver before executing an emergency braking which would allow the driver to react in an appropriate way to avoid the collision and allow the driver to takeover the vehicle to avoid the collision before automatic control.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20190152515 discloses applying torque to vibrate a steering wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights