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 and Arguments
The amendment filed 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20190031189A1 Patana ("Patana").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190283739A1 Kim et al ("Kim", previously cited) in view of US20190359204A1 Saito et al ("Saito", previously cited) and US20190031189A1 Patana ("Patana").
As per claims 1 and 11, Kim teaches the limitations of the system and method:
A three-way longitudinal collision control system for mitigating vehicle occupant injuries, the system comprising: a set of perception systems, of a host vehicle, configured to monitor vehicles traveling both in front of and behind the host vehicle; and a controller, of the host vehicle, configured to utilize the set of perception systems to: controlling a speed of the host vehicle relative a lead vehicle in front of the host vehicle and a trailing vehicle behind the host vehicle; detect an unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision between the host vehicle, the lead vehicle, and the trailing vehicle; and in response to detecting the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision, control a speed of the host vehicle during the three-way longitudinal collision to mitigate injuries to one or more occupants of the host vehicle. (Kim at least the abstract: “A vehicle includes a surrounding information detector … a position and a speed of an object around the vehicle including a vehicle ahead and a vehicle behind, a vehicle information sensor detecting at least one of a speed and an acceleration of the vehicle, a brake module … a controller configured to determine probabilities of a forward collision and a rear-end collision … determine target forward and rear collision speeds to minimize a sum of injuries to an occupant by the forward collision and injuries to the occupant by the rear-end collision … control the brake module based on the target forward collision speed and the target rear-end collision speed.”)
Kim does not disclose:
execute a level of autonomy three or greater (LOA 3+) autonomous driving and detect an imminent collision
Saito teaches the aforementioned limitations (Saito at least the abstract, [0027], FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Saito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve driving safety (Saito [0041]).
Kim does not disclose:
in response to detecting the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision, control a speed of the host vehicle during the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision to minimize a period between (i) a start of a front-impact collision between the host and lead vehicles and (ii) a start of a rear-impact collision between the host and trailing vehicles and thereby mitigate injuries to one or more occupants of the host vehicle.
Patana teaches the aforementioned limitations (Patana at least the abstract: “in the event that the vehicle determines that the collision is unavoidable. The vehicle performs action(s) that reduce the change of momentum experienced by occupant(s) thereof as a result of the collision… actions may comprise accelerating into and causing a collision with vehicle(s) in front of the vehicle at or around the same time at which a further vehicle rear-ends 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 combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Patana with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to reduce the change of momentum experienced by the occupant (Patana abstract).
As per claims 2 and 12, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the controller is configured to control the host vehicle speed to maximize an overlap of collision intervals for the front-impact and rear-impact collisions during the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision.
However, Kim does teach modifying the host vehicle speed to optimize the front collision speed and rear collision speed to minimize passenger injury indexes (Kim at least [0096-0117]). Within the range of collisions speeds (thus controlling time to collision) disclosed in Kim would be a condition of a collision interval wherein the front and rear collision times overlap to reduce passenger injury. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to maximize the overlap of the collision intervals between the lead vehicle and the host vehicle, and the trailing vehicle and the host vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 3
As per claims 3 and 13, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the controller is configured to control the host vehicle speed at the starts of the front impact and rear-impact collisions in the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision to minimize, by making equal, the probability of MAIS 3+ injuries to one or more vehicle occupants, from both the leading and trailing vehicle collisions with the host vehicle.
However, Kim does teach modifying the host vehicle speed to optimize the front collision speed and rear collision speed to minimize the sum of passenger injury indexes of the front and rear collision (Kim at least [0096-0117]). Within the range of injury indices disclosed in Kim would be a condition of wherein reducing the sum of the indexes of injury the index of the front collision is equal to the index of the rear collision, to reduce passenger injury. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to make equal, the probability of MAIS 3+ injuries, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 3
As per claims 4 and 14, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim additionally teaches detecting the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision by detecting a front vehicle and rear vehicle and probability of colliding with the front and rear vehicle, wherein the controlling of the speed of the host vehicle to decrease the passenger injury index is based on relative distance and relative speed (Kim [0084]), delay time (Kim [0090]), from which a TTC can be extracted by one of ordinary skill in the art (Kim at least abstract, [0096-0117]).
Kim does not disclose:
detecting an imminent collision based on whether an expected deceleration by the host vehicle is likely to cause a rear-impact collision by the trailing vehicle with the host vehicle, based on a TTC.
Saito teaches the aforementioned limitations (Saito at least [0051], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Saito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 5 and 15, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim additionally teaches:
the controller is configured to decelerate the host vehicle during the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision to mitigate injuries to the one or more occupants of the host vehicle. (Kim at least the abstract)
As per claims 6 and 16, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim does not disclose:
the controller is configured to accelerate the host vehicle, via increased vehicle drive torque during the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision to mitigate injuries to the one or more occupants of the host vehicle.
Saito teaches the aforementioned limitations (Saito at least [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Saito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 7 and 17, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim additionally teaches:
accelerate the host vehicle during the three-way longitudinal collision to mitigate injuries to the one or more occupants of the host vehicle. (Kim at least the abstract)
Kim does not disclose:
both, and separately, accelerate and decelerate the host vehicle during the unavoidable three-way longitudinal collision to mitigate injuries to the one or more occupants of the host vehicle.
Saito teaches the aforementioned limitations (Saito at least [0005], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Saito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
As per claims 8 and 18, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim additionally teaches:
the set of perception sensors include at least one of radio detection and ranging (RADAR) and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors arranged both in the front and rear of the host vehicle. (Kim at least [0048])
Claim(s) 9-10, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Saito, and Patana in view of US20140195113A1 Lu et al ("Lu").
As per claims 9 and 19, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim does not disclose:
the set of perception sensors are further configured to detect body-type configurations of the lead vehicle and the trailing vehicle, and wherein the controller is configured to account for a body-type configuration of the host vehicle and the body-type configurations and/or relative sizes or bumper heights of the lead vehicle and the trailing vehicle in controlling the host vehicle speed to mitigate injuries to the one or more occupants of the host vehicle.
Lu teaches the aforementioned limitations (Lu at least [0023]: “monitor the…type of the vehicle…bumper…height”, [0049]: “speed of the increase in the height of the vehicle…increasing the downforce increases traction/braking force”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these references in order to improve passenger protection (Lu [0023]).
As per claims 10 and 20, Kim in combination with the other references teaches the inventions as described above. Kim additionally teaches:
the set of perception sensors includes front and rear facing camera systems. (Kim at least [0048])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669