Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is responsive to the claims filed on 12/9/2025.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 12/9/2025 are under consideration. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US12182878B2) in view of Diessner (US 2022/0234502 Al) and in further view of Toffolo (FR2787586A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Shalev-Shwartz teaches a driver-assistance system for controlling a speed of a vehicle dependent on at least two further vehicles in front of the vehicle (Col 20 – lines 22-24 “… system 100 may provide a variety of features related to autonomous driving and/or driver assist technology.” (equates to driver assistance system) & See Also Pg. 1 – abstract – “Systems and methods are provided for navigating a host vehicle.…analyze the at least one image to identify a first target vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle ahead of the first target vehicle…” (equates to dependent on at least two further vehicles) & See Also Col 19 – lines 23-25 “System 100 may provide inputs (e.g., control signals) to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230” (equates to controlling speed of a vehicle)) the driver-assistance system comprising: a control system (Sheet 7 of 61 – FIG 2F (equates to control system)); and a sensor system configured for detecting a respective further speed of the respective further vehicle ( Sheet 2 of 61 – FIG. 2A (equates to sensor system ) & See Also Col 111 – lines 6-7 “…determine a current speed of the target vehicle…” (equates to detecting respective further speed of the respective further vehicle)) wherein the control system is configured to: in front of the vehicle (Pg. 72 – Col. 18. Lines 20-21 – “may be configured to acquire image data from an environment in front of vehicle 200”) perform a weighting of the further speeds to each other (Sheet 18 of 61 – FIG. 5F & See Also Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 30 - lines 14-15 “In the case where multiple vehicles are detected traveling ahead of vehicle 200…” & See Also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (Along with the aforementioned figure and quotes this equates to the control system perform weighting of the further speeds to each other)) based on the weighting of the further speeds to each other, determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further speed and dependent on the weighting of the further speeds (Col 24 – lines 34-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle) & Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (equates to dependent on weighting of further speeds)), wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa (Pg. 66 – col. 6 lines 21-23 – “FIG. 5F is a flowchart showing an exemplary process for determining whether a leading vehicle is changing lanes consistent with the disclosed embodiments” & See Also Pg. 1 – abstract – “analyze the at least one image to identify a first target vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle ahead of the first target vehicle; determine a next state distance between the host vehicle and the second target vehicle that would result if the planned navigational action was taken;” & See Also Pg. 79 – Col. 31 lines 5-8 - “Different analyses performed at step 582 may be assigned different weights, and the disclosed embodiments are not limited to any particular combination of analyses and weights” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 29 – lines 60-65 – “At step 60 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity (e.g., direction and speed),” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 30 – lines 5-6 – “At step 582, processing unit 110 may analyze the navigation information determined at step 580” (equates to wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa as the fourth quote shows the system taking into account speed of the target vehicles. The fifth quote shows the step 582 being based on the received speed information from step 580. The third quote shows that the analysis at step 582 can be done with any weighting scenario i.e. even weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle. The first quote shows the figure containing the step 580 and 582 can be performed based on any embodiment including the citation from the second quote wherein the host vehicle can then perform the weighting analysis based on the further two vehicles in any manner.)) and control the speed of the vehicle dependent on the target speed (Col 24 – lines 44-50 “Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.” (Equates to control the speed of the vehicle based on target speed)).
Yet Shalev-Shwartz fails to teach determine which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle.
Diessner teaches determine which of the at least two further vehicles in front of the vehicle is closer to the vehicle (Pg. 1 – abstract – “The vehicular vision system is operable to detect, via processing by an image processor of multiple frames of captured image data, when multiple objects are viewed by the vehicular camera. During a driving maneuver, and when multiple objects are detected, the vehicular vision system determines which detected object of the multiple detected objects is closest to the vehicle” & See Also Pg. 38 – [0030] – “Such objects can be vehicles…” (equates to which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. As the first quote shows multiple objects thus at least two objects being detected wherein the proximity of each object is compared relative to one another and a particular object is determined to be closest to the vehicle equipped with the detecting means and the second quote shows how the objects may be vehicles.) ).
Yet both fail to teach when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle;
Toffolo teaches when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance (Pg. 4 – 41 – “On the other hand, if a target vehicle C 1 is detected in the lane, the method goes to the step (b) of detection of another target vehicle C 2, traveling in front of the first vehicle on the same lane at a distance greater than but nevertheless less than a predefined threshold” & See Also Pg. 1 – 3 – “Adaptive Cruise Control ACC - allowing the vehicles equipped with them to automatically respect a predetermined safety distance with the preceding vehicle on the same lane. The equipped vehicle automatically modulates its speed to maintain this distance” (equates to when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance as the quote shows the vehicle c1 being ahead of the host vehicle and the second vehicle c2 being ahead of the c1 vehicle but within a threshold distance to the host vehicle and therefor is used in the weighting of the speeds of the vehicles c1 and c2 for the control of the host vehicle. )) when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; (Pg. 4 – 43 – “If the method does not detect any target C 2, then the main target vehicle C 1 is unique and this is the case for the target vehicle C 1 to be detected” & See Also Pg. 6 – 76 – “After step (d), the method considers the existence of a virtual target Cv from the two vehicles C 1 and C 2 present on the lane of the equipped vehicle. Equation (E1) is applicable to both vehicles: rc1= Kv* Vrl+ Kd*(Drl-Dsl) rC2= Kv* Vr2+ Kd*(Dr2 Ds2) The method then compares the set accelerations rC1 and rC2 with respect to the vehicles C1 and C2, with respect to one another, as well as their deviation.” (equates to when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as the first quote shows the c2 vehicle not being considered as it would be outside the threshold distance away from the host vehicle as shown above and then second quote showing that after the data is gathered the weighting between the vehicles c1 and c2 taking place in which this example has the c2 vehicle not being taken into account.) )It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shalev-Shwartz-Diessner to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as these limitations allow for specific distance threshold between the host and leading vehicles to be defined and ensure weighting of speeds of the leading vehicle accurately reflects the understanding of the surroundings.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle as this limitation ensures needless computation does not take place if the further most vehicle is not directly influencing the control of the host vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) teaches the driver-assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to adapt the weighting to a traffic situation involving the vehicle and the at least two further vehicles. (Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582...” & See Also Sheet 34 of 61 Fig. 19 (equates to traffic situation & two further vehicles)).
Regarding Claim 3 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) teaches the driver-assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the traffic situation is specifiable by a respective driving pattern of the respective further vehicle and the control system is further configured to adapt the weighting of the further speeds dependent on the respective driving pattern (See Sheets 32 and 34 of 61 - Fig. 17a AND 19 (equates to traffic situation) & Col 70 lines 3-8 “In this example experiment, a host vehicle 1701 learned to… give way to aggressive vehicles (e.g., vehicles 1703 and 1705), and to safely continue when merging in front of defensive vehicles ( e.g., vehicles 1706…” (equates to the traffic situation (fig 17a) being specifiable by a respective driving pattern) & See Also Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582...” (equates to weighting of the further speeds dependent on respective driving patterns)).
Regarding Claim 4 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) the driver-assistance system according to claim 3, wherein the respective driving pattern involves a respective fluctuation of the respective further speed over time (Col 69 – Lines 5-8 “For example, in some cases… relative acceleration… relative to a host vehicle may be tracked to determine if the target vehicle is aggressive or defensive.” (Equates to wherein the respective driving pattern involves a respective fluctuation of the respective further speed of the respective further vehicle over time)) and the control system is further configured to adapt the weighting of the further speeds such that the more constant the respective further speed is over time, the stronger the respective further speed is weighted. (Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 31 lines 5-8 “Different analyses performed at step 582 may be assigned different weights, and the disclosed embodiments are not limited to any particular combination of analyses and weights” (equates to the stronger the respective further speed is weighted if the respective further vehicle’s velocity fluctuation is deemed more constant as the different analyses done by at step 582 can include weighting a more constant speed to be stronger for their host vehicle)).
Regarding Claim 5 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) teaches the driver-assistance system according to claim 3, wherein the respective driving pattern involves a respective fluctuation of a respective acceleration of the respective further vehicle over time (Col 23 lines 14-16- “…memory 140 may store a monocular image analysis module 402, a stereo image analysis module 404, a velocity and acceleration module 406…” & See Also Col 69 – Lines 5-8 “For example, in some cases… relative acceleration… relative to a host vehicle may be tracked to determine if the target vehicle is aggressive or defensive.” (equates to wherein the respective driving pattern involves a respective fluctuation of the respective further acceleration of the respective further vehicle over time as acceleration is tracked in a traffic situation and a simple derivative with respect with time could be taken upon the specified data thus yielding data on respective fluctuation of acceleration)) and the control system is further configured to adapt the weighting of the further speeds such that the more constant the respective acceleration is over time, the stronger the respective further speed is weighted ( Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 31 lines 5-8 “Different analyses performed at step 582 may be assigned different weights, and the disclosed embodiments are not limited to any particular combination of analyses and weights” (equates to the stronger the respective further speed is weighted if the respective further vehicle’s acceleration fluctuation it is deemed more constant as the different analyses done by at step 582 can include weighting a more constant acceleration fluctuation to be stronger for their host vehicle)).
Regarding Claim 7 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) teaches the driver-assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is further configured to adapt the weighting of the further speeds (Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (equates to configured to adapt weighting of the further speeds)) to a respective type of the respective further vehicle. (Col 111 – lines- 20,22-24 “The recognized characteristic of the target vehicle… In some embodiments, the characteristic may include a vehicle type (e.g., motorcycle, car, bus, truck”).
Regarding Claim 8 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:) the driver-assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the control system is further configured to perform the weighting (Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582”) dependent on a database (Col 34 – lines 28-45 “While a sensed state may be developed based on image data received from one or more cameras or image sensors associated with a host vehicle, a sensed state for use in navigation may be developed using any suitable sensor or combination of sensors. In some embodiments, the sensed state may be developed without reliance upon captured image data. In fact, any of the navigational principles described herein may be applicable to sensed states developed based on captured image data as well as sensed states developed using other non-image based sensors. The sensed state may also be determined via sources external to the host vehicle. For example, a sensed state may be developed in full or in part based on information received from sources remote from the host vehicle (e.g., based on sensor information, processed state information, etc. shared from other vehicles, shared from a central server, or from any other source of information relevant to a navigational state of the 45 host vehicle.) “ (equates to dependent on database)) wherein the database includes a respective relationship between a respective weighting factor for performing the weighting of the respective further speed and at least one parameter for describing the traffic situation.( Fig 14 - 1409– (equates to weighting factor) & See Also Col 34 – lines 28-45 “While a sensed state may be developed based on… a central server, or from any other source of information relevant to a navigational state of the 45 host vehicle. “& Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” & Sheet 34 of 61 Fig. 19 (equates to traffic situation))
Regarding Claim 9 Shalev-Shwartz teaches a method for controlling a speed of a vehicle dependent on at least two further vehicles in front of the vehicle, (Pg. 1 – abstract – “Systems and methods are provided for navigating a host vehicle.…analyze the at least one image to identify a first target vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle ahead of the first target vehicle…” (equates to dependent on at least two further vehicles) & See Also Col 19 – lines 23-25 “System 100 may provide inputs (e.g., control signals) to one or more of throttling system 220, braking system 230”(equates to controlling speed of a vehicle)) the method comprising the following steps: in front of the vehicle (Pg. 72 – Col. 18. Lines 20-21 – “may be configured to acquire image data from an environment in front of vehicle 200”) detecting a respective further speed of the respective further vehicle by a sensor system (Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” (equates to detecting a respective further speed of the respective further vehicle ) & See Also Sheet 1 and 2 of 61 – Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a – (equates to sensor system )); performing a weighting of the further speeds to each other by the control system (Col 24 – lines 35-37 – “Such data may include… and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further vehicle’s speed) & Sheet 18 of 61 – FIG. 5F & See Also Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 30 - lines 14-15- “In the case where multiple vehicles are 15 detected traveling ahead of vehicle 200…” Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (Along with the aforementioned figure and quotes this equates to the control system perform weighting of the further speeds to each other)) wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa (Pg. 66 – col. 6 lines 21-23 – “FIG. 5F is a flowchart showing an exemplary process for determining whether a leading vehicle is changing lanes consistent with the disclosed embodiments” & See Also Pg. 1 – abstract – “analyze the at least one image to identify a first target vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle ahead of the first target vehicle; determine a next state distance between the host vehicle and the second target vehicle that would result if the planned navigational action was taken;” & See Also Pg. 79 – Col. 31 lines 5-8 - “Different analyses performed at step 582 may be assigned different weights, and the disclosed embodiments are not limited to any particular combination of analyses and weights” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 29 – lines 60-65 – “At step 60 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity (e.g., direction and speed),” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 30 – lines 5-6 – “At step 582, processing unit 110 may analyze the navigation information determined at step 580” (equates to wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa as the fourth quote shows the system taking into account speed of the target vehicles. The fifth quote shows the step 582 being based on the received speed information from step 580. The third quote shows that the analysis at step 582 can be done with any weighting scenario i.e. even weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle. The first quote shows the figure containing the step 580 and 582 can be performed based on any embodiment including the citation from the second quote wherein the host vehicle can then perform the weighting analysis based on the further two vehicles in any manner.)) based on the weighting of the further speeds to each other, (Col 24 – lines 34-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle) & Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (equates to dependent on weighting of further speeds))) determining a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further speed (Col 24 – lines 32-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further vehicle’s speed)) and dependent on the weighting of the further speeds by the control system (Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” & Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Sheet 7 of 61 – FIG 2F (this and above quotes equate to dependent on the weighting of the further speeds by the control system)); and controlling the speed of the vehicle dependent on the target speed by the control system (Col 24 – lines 32-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further vehicle’s speed) & See Also Col 24 – lines 44-50 “Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.”(equates to control the speed of the vehicle based on target speed)).
Yet Shalev-Shwartz fails to teach determine which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle.
Diessner teaches determine which of the at least two further vehicles in front of the vehicle is closer to the vehicle (Pg. 1 – abstract – “The vehicular vision system is operable to detect, via processing by an image processor of multiple frames of captured image data, when multiple objects are viewed by the vehicular camera. During a driving maneuver, and when multiple objects are detected, the vehicular vision system determines which detected object of the multiple detected objects is closest to the vehicle” & See Also Pg. 38 – [0030] – “Such objects can be vehicles…” (equates to which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. As the first quote shows multiple objects thus at least two objects being detected wherein the proximity of each object is compared relative to one another and a particular object is determined to be closest to the vehicle equipped with the detecting means and the second quote shows how the objects may be vehicles.) ).
Yet both fail to teach when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle;
Toffolo teaches when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance (Pg. 4 – 41 – “On the other hand, if a target vehicle C 1 is detected in the lane, the method goes to the step (b) of detection of another target vehicle C 2, traveling in front of the first vehicle on the same lane at a distance greater than but nevertheless less than a predefined threshold” & See Also Pg. 1 – 3 – “Adaptive Cruise Control ACC - allowing the vehicles equipped with them to automatically respect a predetermined safety distance with the preceding vehicle on the same lane. The equipped vehicle automatically modulates its speed to maintain this distance” (equates to when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance as the quote shows the vehicle c1 being ahead of the host vehicle and the second vehicle c2 being ahead of the c1 vehicle but within a threshold distance to the host vehicle and therefor is used in the weighting of the speeds of the vehicles c1 and c2 for the control of the host vehicle. )) when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; (Pg. 4 – 43 – “If the method does not detect any target C 2, then the main target vehicle C 1 is unique and this is the case for the target vehicle C 1 to be detected” & See Also Pg. 6 – 76 – “After step (d), the method considers the existence of a virtual target Cv from the two vehicles C 1 and C 2 present on the lane of the equipped vehicle. Equation (E1) is applicable to both vehicles: rc1= Kv* Vrl+ Kd*(Drl-Dsl) rC2= Kv* Vr2+ Kd*(Dr2 Ds2) The method then compares the set accelerations rC1 and rC2 with respect to the vehicles C1 and C2, with respect to one another, as well as their deviation.” (equates to when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as the first quote shows the c2 vehicle not being considered as it would be outside the threshold distance away from the host vehicle as shown above and then second quote showing that after the data is gathered the weighting between the vehicles c1 and c2 taking place in which this example has the c2 vehicle not being taken into account.) )It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shalev-Shwartz-Diessner to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as these limitations allow for specific distance threshold between the host and leading vehicles to be defined and ensure weighting of speeds of the leading vehicle accurately reflects the understanding of the surroundings.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle as this limitation ensures needless computation does not take place if the further most vehicle is not directly influencing the control of the host vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10 Shalev-Shwartz teaches a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions embodied therewith, the computer-readable program instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: in front of the vehicle (Pg. 72 – Col. 18. Lines 20-21 – “may be configured to acquire image data from an environment in front of vehicle 200”) detect a respective further speed of the respective further vehicle by a sensor system (Col 5 lines 18-22 - “Consistent with other disclosed embodiments, non-transitory computer-readable storage media may store program instructions, which are executable by at least one processing device and perform any of the steps and/or methods described herein.” & See Also Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…”(equates to detect respective further speed of the respective further vehicle) & See Also Sheet 2 of 61 – FIG. 2A (equates to sensor system )) perform a weighting of the further speeds to each other by a control system (Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” & Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Sheet 7 of 61 – FIG 2F (this and above quotes equate to perform a weighting of the further speeds to each other by a control system)) wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa; (Pg. 66 – col. 6 lines 21-23 – “FIG. 5F is a flowchart showing an exemplary process for determining whether a leading vehicle is changing lanes consistent with the disclosed embodiments” & See Also Pg. 1 – abstract – “analyze the at least one image to identify a first target vehicle ahead of the host vehicle and a second target vehicle ahead of the first target vehicle; determine a next state distance between the host vehicle and the second target vehicle that would result if the planned navigational action was taken;” & See Also Pg. 79 – Col. 31 lines 5-8 - “Different analyses performed at step 582 may be assigned different weights, and the disclosed embodiments are not limited to any particular combination of analyses and weights” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 29 – lines 60-65 – “At step 60 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity (e.g., direction and speed),” & See Also Pg. 78 – Col. 30 – lines 5-6 – “At step 582, processing unit 110 may analyze the navigation information determined at step 580” (equates to wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa as the fourth quote shows the system taking into account speed of the target vehicles. The fifth quote shows the step 582 being based on the received speed information from step 580. The third quote shows that the analysis at step 582 can be done with any weighting scenario i.e. even weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle. The first quote shows the figure containing the step 580 and 582 can be performed based on any embodiment including the citation from the second quote wherein the host vehicle can then perform the weighting analysis based on the further two vehicles in any manner.)) based on the weighting of the further speeds to each other, (Col 24 – lines 34-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle) & Col 29 – lines 60-64 “At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (equates to dependent on weighting of further speeds))) determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further speed and dependent on the weighting of the further speeds by the control system (Col 30 - lines 14-15 - “In the case where multiple vehicles are detected traveling ahead of vehicle 200…” & See Also Fig. 2F – (equates to control system) & See Also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (Along with the aforementioned figure and quotes this is equates to the control system perform weighting of the further speeds to each other” & See Also Col 24 – lines 32-37 – “…to calculate a target speed for vehicle 200 based on data derived from execution of monocular image analysis module 402 and/or stereo image analysis module 404. Such data may include, for example, a target position, velocity, and/or acceleration, the position and/or speed of vehicle 200 relative to a nearby vehicle…” (equates to determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further vehicle’s speed)); and control the speed of the vehicle dependent on the target speed by the control system. (Col 24 Lines 44- 50 “Based on the calculated target speed, processing unit 110 may transmit electronic signals to throttling system 220, braking system 230, and/or steering system 240 of vehicle 200 to trigger a change in velocity and/or acceleration by, for example, physically depressing the brake or easing up off the accelerator of vehicle 200.”).
Yet Shalev-Shwartz fails to teach determine which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle;
Diessner teaches determine which of the at least two further vehicles in front of the vehicle is closer to the vehicle (Pg. 1 – abstract – “The vehicular vision system is operable to detect, via processing by an image processor of multiple frames of captured image data, when multiple objects are viewed by the vehicular camera. During a driving maneuver, and when multiple objects are detected, the vehicular vision system determines which detected object of the multiple detected objects is closest to the vehicle” & See Also Pg. 38 – [0030] – “Such objects can be vehicles…” (equates to which of the at least two further vehicles is closer to the vehicle. As the first quote shows multiple objects thus at least two objects being detected wherein the proximity of each object is compared relative to one another and a particular object is determined to be closest to the vehicle equipped with the detecting means and the second quote shows how the objects may be vehicles.) ).
Yet both fail to teach when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle;
Toffolo teaches when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance (Pg. 4 – 41 – “On the other hand, if a target vehicle C 1 is detected in the lane, the method goes to the step (b) of detection of another target vehicle C 2, traveling in front of the first vehicle on the same lane at a distance greater than but nevertheless less than a predefined threshold” & See Also Pg. 1 – 3 – “Adaptive Cruise Control ACC - allowing the vehicles equipped with them to automatically respect a predetermined safety distance with the preceding vehicle on the same lane. The equipped vehicle automatically modulates its speed to maintain this distance” (equates to when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance as the quote shows the vehicle c1 being ahead of the host vehicle and the second vehicle c2 being ahead of the c1 vehicle but within a threshold distance to the host vehicle and therefor is used in the weighting of the speeds of the vehicles c1 and c2 for the control of the host vehicle. )) when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; (Pg. 4 – 43 – “If the method does not detect any target C 2, then the main target vehicle C 1 is unique and this is the case for the target vehicle C 1 to be detected” & See Also Pg. 6 – 76 – “After step (d), the method considers the existence of a virtual target Cv from the two vehicles C 1 and C 2 present on the lane of the equipped vehicle. Equation (E1) is applicable to both vehicles: rc1= Kv* Vrl+ Kd*(Drl-Dsl) rC2= Kv* Vr2+ Kd*(Dr2 Ds2) The method then compares the set accelerations rC1 and rC2 with respect to the vehicles C1 and C2, with respect to one another, as well as their deviation.” (equates to when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as the first quote shows the c2 vehicle not being considered as it would be outside the threshold distance away from the host vehicle as shown above and then second quote showing that after the data is gathered the weighting between the vehicles c1 and c2 taking place in which this example has the c2 vehicle not being taken into account.) )It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shalev-Shwartz-Diessner to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle; as these limitations allow for specific distance threshold between the host and leading vehicles to be defined and ensure weighting of speeds of the leading vehicle accurately reflects the understanding of the surroundings.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance; when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle as this limitation ensures needless computation does not take place if the further most vehicle is not directly influencing the control of the host vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shalev-Shwartz-Diessner-Toffolo as mapped above and in view of Lumb et al. (US 11904889 Bl).
Regarding Claim 6 Shalev-Shwartz- Diessner-Toffolo teaches (Shalev-Shwartz discloses the following:), the driver-assistance system according to claim 1, wherein: the traffic situation involves a respective relative distance of the respective further vehicle to the vehicle (Col 51 lines 44-50 “The predefined hard constraints may also include one or more target vehicle constraints. For example, a target vehicle 1217 may be detected in image 1201. To ensure that the host vehicle does not collide with target vehicle 1217, one or more hard constraints may be employed. In some cases, a target vehicle envelope may be associated with a single buffer zone distance”); and the control system is further configured to perform the weighting of the respective further speed (Col 29 – lines 60-64 At step 580, processing unit 110 may determine navigation information associated with a leading vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling ahead of vehicle 200). For example, processing unit 110 may determine the position, velocity…” & See Also Col 30 line 65-67 – “For example, processing unit 110 may make the determination based on a weighted average of the individual analyses performed at step 582” (equates to configured to adapt weighting of the further speeds)) wherein when the respective relative distance is greater than a calculated desirable following distance between the vehicle and the one of the further vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and less than a predefined threshold distance, wherein the predefined threshold distance is greater than the calculated desirable following distance.
Yet all fails to specifically teach wherein when the respective relative distance is greater than a calculated desirable following distance between the vehicle and the one of the further vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and less than a predefined threshold distance, wherein the predefined threshold distance is greater than the calculated desirable following distance.
Lumb discloses a similar driver assistance system for controlling speed of a vehicle dependent on weighting of speeds (abstract). Lumb teaches wherein when the respective relative distance is greater than a calculated desirable following distance between the vehicle and the one of the further vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and less than a predefined threshold distance, (Col 40 lines – 47-49 – “The method of FIG. 17 also includes identifying 1704 a current forward distance 1705 between the ego vehicle 1600 and the vehicle in front of the ego vehicle in the driving lane” (equates to respective relative distance) & See Also Col 39 – lines 60-63 - “…FIG. 17 also includes identifying 1702 a minimum forward distance 1703 between the ego vehicle and a vehicle in front of the ego vehicle in a driving lane (equates to calculated following distance) & See Also Col 40 – lines 58-59 “…the current forward distance 1705 is greater than the minimum forward distance…” (Equates to respective relative distance is greater than a calculated desirable following distance between the vehicle and the one of the further vehicles that is closest to the vehicle) & See Also Col 39 lines 65-68 & Col 40 line 1 “The ego vehicle 1600 maintains a forward, or following, distance between the ego vehicle and the ego vehicle in front of it. A general metric may be to leave, for example, two car lengths.” & Col 22 – lines 3-8 “…detected velocity of each vehicle may be weighted based on its distance from the autonomous vehicle. In one example, velocities of vehicles that are within a particular range are weighted more than velocities of vehicles outside of that range. To aid illustration, in a particular example the velocities of vehicles that are 20 meters to 60 (equates to predetermined threshold distance greater than the respective relative distance)) wherein the predefined threshold distance is greater than the calculated desirable following distance (Col 39 lines 65-68 & Col 40 line 1 “The ego vehicle 1600 maintains a forward, or following, distance between the ego vehicle and the ego vehicle in front of it. A general metric may be to leave, for example, two car lengths.” & See Also Col 40 – lines 58-59 “…the current forward distance 1705 is greater than the minimum forward distance…” & See Also Col 22 – lines 3-8 “…detected velocity of each vehicle may be weighted based on its distance from the autonomous vehicle. In one example, velocities of vehicles that are within a particular range are weighted more than velocities of vehicles outside of that range. To aid illustration, in a particular example the velocities of vehicles that are 20 meters to 60 (equates to predetermined threshold distance greater than the calculated desirable following distance)). It would have been advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Shalev-Shwartz to include various distances in which the sensing of external vehicles used for determining a target speed of our host vehicle as this allows only cars within a certain proximity to affect how our control system handles the weighting of further respective speeds.
Therefor it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the driver assistance system to weight speeds dependent upon the predetermined threshold distance being greater than the calculated following distance and respective relative distance to ensure the target vehicle is within a certain range of our host vehicle for further reducing fuel consumption.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the argument provided for the 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-10, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 – “Applicant respectfully submits that neither Shalev-Shwartz nor Diessner, either alone or in combination, disclose or make obvious each and every feature of amended independent claims 1 and 10. Specifically, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited prior art references, either alone or in combination, fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features of amended independent claims 1 and 10 regarding when a respective distance is greater than a calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle and is less than a predefined threshold distance, perform a weighting of the further speeds to each other, when the respective distance is less than the calculated following distance between the vehicle and the one of the leading vehicles that is closest to the vehicle or is greater than the predefined threshold distance, not perform the weighting of the respective speed of the respective further vehicle and based on the weighting of the further speeds to each other, determine a target speed of the vehicle dependent on the respective further speed and dependent on the weighting of the further speeds, wherein the weighting is based on the further speed of the further vehicle that is closer to the vehicle is weighted greater than the further speed of the other further vehicle or vice versa.” – In response to point (a) the argument is made moot in light of new grounds of rejection as supplied above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0178796 Al. - A control device for vehicle travelling is provided, which executes following control that controls a vehicle speed in accordance with a following distance from a preceding vehicle.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/24/26