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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues cited references fail to teach or suggest at least the amended features of independent claim 1. Applicant argues the claim has been amended to incorporate features of claim 26 and the cited portions of Hutcheson (US 20180208195) in response to claim 26 assess risk levels associated with a geographic area based on historical data of the geographic region, but not the claimed selecting an operation mode based on an image captured by an onboard camera. Applicant argues Hutcheson relies on location based historical data and not real-time image-based environmental analysis. Therefore, the Applicant concludes independent claim 1 is allowable.
However, the independent claim 1 does not appear to incorporate the limitations of the current or previous claim 26. Claim 26 recites that a detected condition includes an urban condition, whereas the amended claim language recites determining a condition within images, as such, these are considerably different features and require a considerably different application of prior art. Hutcheson teaches as was previously cited, vehicle sensors, including cameras, gather information about surrounding vehicles including taking photographs and videos, which are a plurality of images, these are then analyzed to determine features of vehicles within the own vehicle’s environment. Then, both the proximity and behavior of nearby vehicles are detected within the images, and used to determine the risk of the current environment around the own vehicle, which is incorporated into the selection of different driving modes of the own vehicle. This is detecting a condition within images of an environment around a host vehicle and using the detected condition to control driving mode selection, which is precisely what is required by the claim. While Hutcheson certainly does rely on historical information, it explicitly also incorporates images that are taken within the same degree of real-time operation as recited by the Applicant for operating the vehicle as disclosed.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues independent claims 43 and 44 recite similar features to independent claim 1 and therefore are allowable for the same reasons.
This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues none of the remaining references remedy the deficiencies of the rejections of the independent claims.
However, none of the remaining references are required to remedy any alleged deficiency and therefore this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
However, this argument is unpersuasive as each independent and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons as given above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 21-32, 35-40, 43-45, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Hutcheson et al. (US 20180208195).
In regards to claim 1, Hutcheson teaches a system for navigating a host vehicle, the system comprising: (Fig 1, 2, 8, 9.)
at least one processor comprising circuitry and a memory, wherein the memory includes instructions that when executed by the circuitry cause the at least one processor to: ([0105] processor executes instructions stored in memory to perform operations.)
receive a plurality of images acquired by a camera onboard the host vehicle; ([0043], [0044], [0115] vehicle’s sensors, including cameras, may gather information about surrounding vehicles including photographs and video, where video contains a plurality of images.)
identify a representation of a target vehicle in at least one of the plurality of images; ([0043], [0044], gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle.)
detect a condition in an environment of the host vehicle based on at least one of the plurality of images; ([0037], [0038], [0043], [0044], [0046] gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle and this information may be further assessed to determine proximity and behavior of nearby vehicles which are detected conditions in the environment of the host vehicle based at least on the collected images.)
select a safe navigation mode from among a plurality of available safe navigation modes based at least in part on the detected condition, wherein each of the plurality of safe navigation modes is associated with a corresponding safe mode distance; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0071], [0073] driving mode selector selects one mode of operation for the vehicle from a plurality of modes of operation, where each mode of operation has corresponding driving characteristics including inter-vehicle distance maintained with vehicles ahead of the own vehicle and is selected based upon the risk found within the environment around the own vehicle determined from observations within images, including detected conditions of images of at least surrounding vehicle proximity and behavior.)
determine, based on at least one driving policy, a planned navigational action for accomplishing a navigational goal of the host vehicle, wherein the planned navigational action is predicted to result in a next state distance between the host vehicle and the target vehicle that is greater than or equal to the corresponding safe mode distance of the selected safe navigation mode; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0073], [0074], [0094] based on observed information, driving mode is selected and the vehicle is controlled according to the driving mode, where particularly the driving characteristics are adjusted for each driving mode, including maintaining a corresponding inter-vehicle distance, and adjusting speed and acceleration. This is determining a planned navigational action of maintaining inter-vehicle distance from sensed and measured information with other vehicles by adjusting speed and acceleration of the vehicle, which is a driving policy, such that intervehicle distance is maintained at or greater than a set minimum inter-vehicle distance.) and
implement the planned navigational action by controlling one or more actuators associated with the host vehicle. (Fig 4A, [0037], [0038], [0055], [0070], [0071], [0073], [0074] throttle and steering information are input into determinations of risk, which are then used to determine a driving mode and control the vehicle, which further actuates these components, and brake components, which controls the vehicle according to planned instructions, such as maintaining at least a minimum inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 2, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of safe navigation modes includes at least a first safe navigation mode associated with a first safe mode distance and a second safe navigation mode associated with a second safe mode distance, wherein the second safe mode distance is less than the first safe mode distance. ([0074], [0075] inter-vehicle distance may be scaled based on mode of operations and may be further weighted to allow more distance based on operator preferences. This includes therefore at least the unscaled inter-vehicle distance, the scaled inter-vehicle distance, and the weighted inter-vehicle distance, which are all of different distances, and at least one is larger than the middle one, which is larger than the smallest one.)
In regards to claim 3, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the first safe navigation mode is associated with a first maximum allowed acceleration level that is less than a second maximum allowed acceleration level associated with the second safe navigation mode. ([0074], [0075] inter-vehicle distance may be weighted based on driver preferences to increase the inter-vehicle distance to allow for reduced start and stops, which is reduced acceleration and maximum acceleration from either a scaled or unscaled inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 21, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a detected location of the host vehicle. ([0063], [0064] equation of risk is at least in part based on location based risk, computed from vehicle’s current location, where [0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk. This selects the vehicle mode for the vehicle based on determined location of the own vehicle.)
In regards to claim 22, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a detected condition associated with the host vehicle. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from [0067] weather conditions [0063], [0064] location conditions, [0065] and road conditions.)
In regards to claim 23, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the detected condition includes a detected weather condition. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from at least [0067] weather conditions.)
In regards to claim 24, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the detected condition includes a detected traffic volume level. ([0046] control may be adjusted based on traffic jams and density.)
In regards to claim 25, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the detected condition includes a detected host vehicle speed level. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from at least [0048] relative speed between the own vehicle speed and each other vehicle’s speed, which includes a speed level of the own vehicle.)
In regards to claim 26, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the detected condition includes a detected urban environment. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from at least [0063] geolocation information. Geolocation information includes the geographic location information including that the information is from an urban environment, a suburban environment, a rural environment, and any other type of environment, all of which are included any analyzed.)
In regards to claim 27, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the target vehicle is traveling in a same lane as the host vehicle and ahead of the host vehicle. (Fig 7B, 7C, [0079]-[0081] vehicle particularly detects another vehicle and processing is repeated for each other vehicle in the environment, which includes particularly detecting a vehicle within the same lane, for example car 3 as the host vehicle detecting car 5 as the target vehicle.)
In regards to claim 28, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the target vehicle is traveling in a lane different from the host vehicle. (Fig 7A, [0079] vehicle 3 may determine risk of vehicle 4, which are in different lanes from each other. When vehicle 3 is the host vehicle, [0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk including risk of vehicle 4.)
In regards to claim 29, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the planned navigational action includes a lane change maneuver to a position behind the target vehicle. ([0071, [0073] vehicle may be controlled by adjusting permission to change lanes, either allowing and causing lane change or disallowing and prohibiting lane change, which includes particularly moving behind the target vehicle.)
In regards to claim 30, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the planning navigation action includes maintaining a position behind the target vehicle. ([0071, [0073] vehicle may be controlled by adjusting permission to change lanes, either allowing and causing lane change or disallowing and prohibiting lane change, which includes particularly maintaining inter-vehicle distance behind another vehicle without changing lanes.)
In regards to claim 31, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more actuators are associated with a braking system of the host vehicle. (Fig 4A, [0037], [0038], [0055], [0070], [0071], [0073], [0074] throttle and steering information are input into determinations of risk, which are then used to determine a driving mode and control the vehicle, which further actuates these components, and brake components, which controls the vehicle according to planned instructions, such as maintaining at least a minimum inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 32, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more actuators are associated with a throttle system of the host vehicle. (Fig 4A, [0037], [0038], [0055], [0070], [0071], [0073], [0074] throttle and steering information are input into determinations of risk, which are then used to determine a driving mode and control the vehicle, which further actuates these components, and brake components, which controls the vehicle according to planned instructions, such as maintaining at least a minimum inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 35, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a regulation imposed by a municipality of other authority. ([0064]-[0066] location based risk may be received from cloud server or roadside infrastructure, which determines historical context for location, such as limited visibility, blind spots, short merging distances, and the like. At least short merging distances are regulations within which a vehicle can acceptably merge. [0069]-[0071] this information from the cloud server or road side unit is then used to select a mode of operation for the vehicle. This causes the mode of operation of the vehicle to be selected based on regulation information from a cloud server or road side unit acting as a municipality of other authority.)
In regards to claim 36, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 35, wherein the regulation is automatically determined by the at least one processor through a computer interface with the municipality of other authority. ([0064]-[0066] location based risk may be received from cloud server or roadside infrastructure, which determines historical context for location, such as limited visibility, blind spots, short merging distances, and the like. At least short merging distances are regulations within which a vehicle can acceptably merge. [0069]-[0071] this information from the cloud server or road side unit is then used to select a mode of operation for the vehicle. This causes the mode of operation of the vehicle to be selected based on regulation information from a cloud server or road side unit acting as a municipality of other authority. [0105] processor executes instructions stored in memory to perform operations, which includes here receiving and interpreting the information from the cloud server or road side unit, which must come through some sort of computer communications interface of the cloud server or road side unit.)
In regards to claim 37, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 36, wherein the municipality of other authority is determined based on a detected location of the host vehicle. ([0063]-[0066] location based risk may be received from cloud server or roadside infrastructure, which determines historical context for location, such as limited visibility, blind spots, short merging distances, and the like, based on current location of vehicle. At least short merging distances are regulations within which a vehicle can acceptably merge. [0069]-[0071] this information from the cloud server or road side unit is then used to select a mode of operation for the vehicle. This causes the mode of operation of the vehicle to be selected based on regulation information from a cloud server or road side unit acting as a municipality of other authority. When provided through infrastructure, this information must come from infrastructure corresponding to the relevant location.)
In regards to claim 38, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a detected location of the host vehicle, wherein the detected location is determined through localization of the host vehicle relative to a REM map. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from at least [0054], [0064] stored map data. This includes any and all types of stored map data including REM map data.)
In regards to claim 39, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a detected lane of travel in which the host vehicle is located. ([0073], [0086] vehicle may be operated to allow or disallow lane change by transitioning operating modes including recognition of the current lane of the vehicle.)
In regards to claim 40, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 39, wherein the selection is made in response to the host vehicle changing lanes. ([0070], [0071] vehicle mode of operation is determined based on overall risk which is determined from at least [0048], [0073], [0086] relative speed and position of vehicles, which particularly is defined by at least lane changes. As the vehicle travels, risk evolves depending on behavior of the own vehicle and other vehicles, including the own vehicle’s lane changes.)
In regards to claim 43, Hutcheson teaches a method for navigating a host vehicle, the method comprising: ([0094] method of operating vehicle.)
receiving a plurality of images acquired by a camera onboard the host vehicle; ([0043], [0044], [0115] vehicle’s sensors, including cameras, may gather information about surrounding vehicles including photographs and video, where video contains a plurality of images.)
identifying a representation of a target vehicle in at least one of the plurality of images; ([0043], [0044], gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle.)
detecting a condition in an environment of the host vehicle based on at least one of the plurality of images; ([0037], [0038], [0043], [0044], [0046] gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle and this information may be further assessed to determine proximity and behavior of nearby vehicles which are detected conditions in the environment of the host vehicle based at least on the collected images.)
selecting a safe navigation mode from among a plurality of available safe navigation modes based at least in part on the detected condition, wherein each of the plurality of safe navigation modes is associated with a corresponding safe mode distance; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0071], [0073] driving mode selector selects one mode of operation for the vehicle from a plurality of modes of operation, where each mode of operation has corresponding driving characteristics including inter-vehicle distance maintained with vehicles ahead of the own vehicle and is selected based upon the risk found within the environment around the own vehicle determined from observations within images, including detected conditions of images of at least surrounding vehicle proximity and behavior.)
determining, based on at least one driving policy, a planned navigational action for accomplishing a navigational goal of the host vehicle, wherein the planned navigational action is predicted to result in a next state distance between the host vehicle and the target vehicle that is greater than or equal to the corresponding safe mode distance of the selected safe navigation mode; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0073], [0074], [0094] based on observed information, driving mode is selected and the vehicle is controlled according to the driving mode, where particularly the driving characteristics are adjusted for each driving mode, including maintaining a corresponding inter-vehicle distance, and adjusting speed and acceleration. This is determining a planned navigational action of maintaining inter-vehicle distance from sensed and measured information with other vehicles by adjusting speed and acceleration of the vehicle, which is a driving policy, such that intervehicle distance is maintained at or greater than a set minimum inter-vehicle distance.) and
implementing the planned navigational action by controlling one or more actuators associated with the host vehicle. (Fig 4A, [0037], [0038], [0055], [0070], [0071], [0073], [0074] throttle and steering information are input into determinations of risk, which are then used to determine a driving mode and control the vehicle, which further actuates these components, and brake components, which controls the vehicle according to planned instructions, such as maintaining at least a minimum inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 44, Hutcheson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform navigation of a host vehicle, the operations comprising: ([0105] processor executes instructions stored in memory to perform operations.)
receiving a plurality of images acquired by a camera onboard the host vehicle; ([0043], [0044], [0115] vehicle’s sensors, including cameras, may gather information about surrounding vehicles including photographs and video, where video contains a plurality of images.)
identifying a representation of a target vehicle in at least one of the plurality of images; ([0043], [0044], gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle.)
detecting a condition in an environment of the host vehicle based on at least one of the plurality of images; ([0037], [0038], [0043], [0044], [0046] gathered information about surrounding vehicles may be analyzed to determine edges of nearby vehicle within the captured information, which is a representation of each vehicle, including a target vehicle and this information may be further assessed to determine proximity and behavior of nearby vehicles which are detected conditions in the environment of the host vehicle based at least on the collected images.)
selecting a safe navigation mode from among a plurality of available safe navigation modes based at least in part on the detected condition, wherein each of the plurality of safe navigation modes is associated with a corresponding safe mode distance; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0071], [0073] driving mode selector selects one mode of operation for the vehicle from a plurality of modes of operation, where each mode of operation has corresponding driving characteristics including inter-vehicle distance maintained with vehicles ahead of the own vehicle and is selected based upon the risk found within the environment around the own vehicle determined from observations within images, including detected conditions of images of at least surrounding vehicle proximity and behavior.)
determining, based on at least one driving policy, a planned navigational action for accomplishing a navigational goal of the host vehicle, wherein the planned navigational action is predicted to result in a next state distance between the host vehicle and the target vehicle that is greater than or equal to the corresponding safe mode distance of the selected safe navigation mode; ([0037], [0038], [0055], [0073], [0074], [0094] based on observed information, driving mode is selected and the vehicle is controlled according to the driving mode, where particularly the driving characteristics are adjusted for each driving mode, including maintaining a corresponding inter-vehicle distance, and adjusting speed and acceleration. This is determining a planned navigational action of maintaining inter-vehicle distance from sensed and measured information with other vehicles by adjusting speed and acceleration of the vehicle, which is a driving policy, such that intervehicle distance is maintained at or greater than a set minimum inter-vehicle distance.) and
implementing the planned navigational action by controlling one or more actuators associated with the host vehicle. (Fig 4A, [0037], [0038], [0055], [0070], [0071], [0073], [0074] throttle and steering information are input into determinations of risk, which are then used to determine a driving mode and control the vehicle, which further actuates these components, and brake components, which controls the vehicle according to planned instructions, such as maintaining at least a minimum inter-vehicle distance.)
In regards to claim 45, Hutcheson teaches the method of claim 43.
Claim 45 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 45 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
In regards to claim 47, Hutcheson teaches the method of claim 43.
Claim 47 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 21 above, therefore claim 47 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
In regards to claim 48, Hutcheson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44.
Claim 48 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having substantially the same features of claim 22 above, therefore claim 48 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
In regards to claim 49, Hutcheson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44.
Claim 49 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having substantially the same features of claim 27 above, therefore claim 49 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 27.
In regards to claim 50, Hutcheson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 44.
Claim 50 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having substantially the same features of claim 35 above, therefore claim 50 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 35.
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 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Yang (US 20220234556) and Cayol et al. (US 20220274597).
In regards to claim 4, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 3.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the first maximum allowed acceleration level is less than an acceleration level associated with maximum braking capability of the host vehicle.
However, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
Further, Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities, where braking capacities are decelerations, and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0029], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the maximum acceleration is determined and the maximum braking capacity is determined, which includes the particular case of the maximum acceleration being less than the acceleration of the braking capacity.
The motivation to determine the maximum acceleration is that, as acknowledged by Yang, this allows for determining an ideal braking distance, which then allows for improved control of the vehicle ([0011], [0047], [0048]), The motivation to determine braking capacity, and corresponding acceleration is that, as acknowledged by Cayol, this allows for determining an improved stopping distance ([0030]), which improves safety.
In regards to claim 5, Hutcheson, as modified by Yang and Cayol, teaches the system of claim 4.
Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities, where braking capacities are decelerations, and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0029], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the maximum acceleration is determined and the maximum braking capacity is determined, which includes the particular case of the maximum acceleration being less than or equal to 75% of the acceleration of the braking capacity, as well as all other cases.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Yang and Cayol in regards to claim 4.
In regards to claim 6, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 2.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the first safe mode distance corresponds to an acceleration distance of the host vehicle summed with a minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle, and wherein the minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle is determined based on a sub-maximal braking level associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
However, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance ([0047], [0048]).
Further, Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the inter-vehicle distance for each vehicle mode is determined at least in part by summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance, and an acceleration distance, where the relevant vehicles have assumed braking capacities, which includes the particular case of a less than maximum braking level associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
The motivation to sum such terms is that, as acknowledged by Yang, this allows for improved collision determination, which allows for improved control ([0011]). The motivation to make assumptions of braking capacity is that, as acknowledged by Cayol, this allows for determining an improved stopping distance ([0030]), which one of ordinary skill would have recognized improves safety.
In regards to claim 7, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang, such that the acceleration distance is determined as the maximum acceleration from a current time at a current velocity to zero.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yang in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 8, Hutcheson, as modified by Yang and Cayol, teaches the system of claim 6.
Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance ([0047], [0048]).
Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0029], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the inter-vehicle distance is determined using a minimum safe distance, a delay distance, and an acceleration distance, and the minimum safe distance is determined from braking capacities of the vehicles.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledge by Yang and Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 9, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 2.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the first safe mode distance corresponds to an acceleration distance of the host vehicle summed with a minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle minus a minimum stopping distance of the target vehicle, wherein the minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle is determined based on a sub-maximal braking level of the host vehicle associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
However, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance ([0047], [0048]).
Further, Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle. Notably, Cayol’s acceleration values are opposite in sign to those of the instant claims, such that the acceleration of the ego vehicle is subtracted from the delay distance because it is negative in sign and the acceleration of the target vehicle is added to the delay distance because it is also negative in sign, by simplifying these equations, these amount to adding the delay distance to stopping distance of the own vehicle and subtracting stopping distance of the target vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the inter-vehicle distance for each vehicle mode is determined at least in part by summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance, and an acceleration distance and subtracting a minimum stopping distance of the target vehicle, where the relevant vehicles have assumed braking capacities, which includes the particular case of a less than maximum barking level associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Yang and Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 10, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang, such that the acceleration distance is determined as the maximum acceleration from a current time at a current velocity to zero.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yang in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 11, Cayol teaches safe distance is computed as the distance to stopping for the vehicles ([0027], [0029], [0030]). Cayol also teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teaching of Cayol, such that the minimum safety distance of the own vehicle is computed from a current speed to stopped at each braking level assumption.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 12, Cayol teaches safe distance is computed as the distance to stopping for the vehicles ([0027], [0029], [0030]). Cayol also teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teaching of Cayol, such that the minimum safety distance of the target vehicle is computed from a current speed of the target vehicle to stopped at each braking level assumption, including a maximum predicted braking level.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 13, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 2.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the second safe mode distance corresponds to an acceleration distance of the host vehicle summed with a minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle.
However, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance ([0047], [0048]).
Further, Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the inter-vehicle distances, including the second inter-vehicle distances, for each vehicle mode are determined at least in part by summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance, and an acceleration distance, where the relevant vehicles have assumed braking capacities, which includes the particular case of a less than maximum braking level associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Yang and Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 14, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang, such that the acceleration distance is determined as the maximum acceleration from a current time at a current velocity to zero.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yang in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 15, Cayol teaches safe distance is computed as the distance to stopping for the vehicles ([0027], [0029], [0030]). Cayol also teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teaching of Cayol, such that the minimum safety distance of the own vehicle is computed from a current speed to stopped at each braking level assumption, including maximum braking.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 16, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 2.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the second safe mode distance corresponds to an acceleration distance of the host vehicle summed with a minimum stopping distance of the host vehicle minus a minimum stopping distance of the target vehicle.
However, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance ([0047], [0048]).
Further, Cayol teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle. Notably, Cayol’s acceleration values are opposite in sign to those of the instant claims, such that the acceleration of the ego vehicle is subtracted from the delay distance because it is negative in sign and the acceleration of the target vehicle is added to the delay distance because it is also negative in sign, by simplifying these equations, these amount to adding the delay distance to stopping distance of the own vehicle and subtracting stopping distance of the target vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yang and Cayol, such that the inter-vehicle distances, including the second inter-vehicle distance, for each vehicle mode is determined at least in part by summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance, and an acceleration distance and subtracting a minimum stopping distance of the target vehicle, where the relevant vehicles have assumed braking capacities, which includes the particular case of a less than maximum barking level associated with a braking acceleration level less than a predetermined braking acceleration level.
The motivations to do so are the same as acknowledged by Yang and Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, Yang teaches determining an ideal braking distance for an own vehicle following another vehicle based on summing a minimum safe distance, a delay distance before the own vehicle acts, and an acceleration distance, which is particularly the maximum acceleration of vehicle at the current relative velocity to zero velocity ([0047], [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teachings of Yang, such that the acceleration distance is determined as the maximum acceleration from a current time at a current velocity to zero.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yang in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 18, Cayol teaches safe distance is computed as the distance to stopping for the vehicles ([0027], [0029], [0030]). Cayol also teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teaching of Cayol, such that the minimum safety distance of the own vehicle is computed from a current speed to stopped at each braking level assumption, including maximum braking.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cayol in regards to claim 6.
In regards to claim 19, Cayol teaches safe distance is computed as the distance to stopping for the vehicles ([0027], [0029], [0030]). Cayol also teaches determining a safety distance between two vehicles based on braking capacity of the vehicles, the braking capacities of both the ego vehicle and the target vehicle may be presumed braking capacities and different tables may be referenced for different presumed capacities ([0027], [0030], [0031], [0033]). This accounts for all assumptions of braking capacity, including maximum braking capacities, minimum braking capacities, and all braking capacities in-between for each vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yang and Cayol, by further incorporating the teaching of Cayol, such that the minimum safety distance of the target vehicle is computed from a current speed of the target vehicle to stopped at each braking level assumption, including a maximum predicted braking level.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Cayol in regards to claim 6.
Claim 20 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Ito (US 20200276972).
In regards to claim 20, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1.
Hutcheson does not teach: wherein the planned navigational action includes causing the host vehicle to coast, without activation of a mechanical braking system associated with the host vehicle.
However, Ito teaches it is conventional to meet an inter-vehicle distance by coasting the own vehicle as required ([0003]), where coasting does not activate braking and the engines or motors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Ito, such that actions taken by the own vehicle include coasting to regulate inter-vehicle distance, which does not operate engines, motors, or brakes of the own vehicle.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ito, this allows for improving fuel efficiency ([0003], [0004]).
In regards to claim 46, Hutcheson teaches the method of claim 43.
Claim 46 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 20 above, therefore claim 46 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 20.
Claims 33, 34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20030052647).
In regards to claim 33, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a schedule of the user.
However, Yoshida teaches transitioning between modes of a charging system, such as a vehicle based on calendar schedule such that a user may travel along their desired route ([0002], [0009] [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yoshida, such that schedule is used to adjust mode of the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Yoshida, this allows for more appropriate energy usage such that a vehicle and user can travel more effectively and comfortably ([0009]).
In regards to claim 34, Yoshida teaches transitioning between modes of a charging system, such as a vehicle based on calendar schedule such that a user may travel along their desired route ([0002], [0009] [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, as already modified by Yoshida, by further incorporating the teachings of Yoshida, such that schedule is from a calendar and is used to adjust mode of the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yoshida in regards to claim 33.
In regards to claim 42, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on a current fuel or battery status associated with the host vehicle.
However, Yoshida teaches transitioning between modes of a charging system, such as a vehicle based on calendar schedule and state of charge such that a user may travel along their desired route ([0002], [0009] [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Yoshida, such that state of charge is used to adjust mode of the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Yoshida in regards to claim 33.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Ikeda (US 20240239316).
In regards to claim 41, Hutcheson teaches the system of claim 1.
Hutcheson does not teach:
wherein the selection of the safe navigation mode from among the plurality of available safe navigation modes is based on whether there is a human occupant in the vehicle.
However, Ikeda teaches transitioning between different braking modes of a vehicle based on the presence or absence of a human occupant ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle control system of Hutcheson, by incorporating the teachings of Ikeda, such that the navigational modes of the vehicle are transitioned based on the presence or absence of a human occupant within the vehicle.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ikeda, this allows for improving comfort when the occupant is present and alternative driving otherwise ([0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seto (US 20020152015) teaches a vehicle equipped with multiple different braking and driving force control systems that regulate inter-vehicle distance.
Yamaoka (US 20250042428) teaches regulating vehicle to vehicle distance.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661