DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed July 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 15-17, and 19 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 are presently cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
The applicant’s Remarks, filed July 9, 2026, has been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “II. Objections to Drawings” that figures 7-10 have been amended to correct the spelling error. Fig. 10 has also been amended to make the right arrow end at the far right vertical line. Now Ts + Ds = 60 meters, as it should. Due to amendment, the examiner withdraws the drawing objections made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated May 9, 2026.
The applicant argues under the heading “III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)” that claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled rendering the rejections of those claims moot. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) in the last detailed action was focused on the independent claims being unclear regarding what vehicle—whether the host vehicle or preceding vehicle—is being referred to in various instances of the claim. The examiner withdraws the rejection, noting that wherever “a vehicle” or “the vehicle” is mentioned in the claims it refers to the host vehicle, while “a preceding vehicle” or “the preceding vehicle” refers to the vehicle in front of the host vehicle.
In some instances, the examiner might add in the word host in brackets for clarity during discussion of the claims in this office action. This is not meant to suggest that the word host needs to be added on amendment, but is simply added here for the purposes of a clear detailed action in the interest of compact prosecution.
The applicant argues under the heading “IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103” that the claims as amended are not taught by the prior art of record. In particular, the applicant argues that claim 1 is not anticipated by Foster et al. (US2022/0348227), as the examiner argued in the last detailed action regarding the older version of claim 1. The applicant argues on page 13 of the Remarks that Foster does not teach “comparing the stopping distance of the vehicle with multiple reference values for the purpose of determining an area in which the vehicle is located so as to control a control module, configured to control driving and steering, based on the determined area.”
The applicant further writes that “the claimed subject matter is directed not merely to determining or maintaining a desired following distance, but to determining the area in which the vehicle is located based on a comparison of a stopping distance of the vehicle with both 1) the safe stopping distance and ii) a value determined by summing a preset collision-avoiding safety distance and the safe stopping distance.”
The applicant also writes that “Unlike Foster, amended claim 1 requires the processor to determine a first value by summing the preset collision-avoiding safety distance and the safe stopping distance, and to use the determining first value as an additional comparison criterion for determining an area in which the vehicle is located and control a control module, configured to control driving and steering of the vehicle, based on the determined area.”
To determine if these arguments are persuasive it is necessary to analyze claim 1. Claim 1 now recites:
A device for controlling a vehicle, the device comprising:
a sensor device configured to detect a preceding vehicle of the [host] vehicle;
a control module configured to control driving and steering of the [host] vehicle; and
a processor configured to
determine a braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] based on a maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle,
determine a safe stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [CS, see paragraph 0120 of the present published disclosure] in proportion to the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df],
determine a first value by summing a preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X] and the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS],
compare a stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [Ts+Ds] with the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS] and the first value,
determine, based on a result of the comparison host] vehicle is located among
a safety area,
a collision risk area, and
a collision area, and
control the control module based on the determined area,
wherein the stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [Ts+Ds] is determined based on a free running distance of the [host] vehicle [Ts] and a braking distance of the [host] vehicle [Ds], and
wherein the safe stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [CS] is determined as a sum of
(i) an inter-vehicle distance C], detected via the sensor device, and [similar to old claim 4. This amendment is supported by at least paragraph 0118 of the present published disclosure.]
(ii) a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X].
Note that “a safe stopping distance” of the host vehicle is different from “a stopping distance” of the host vehicle.
Note also that there is a difference between the host vehicle’s “stopping distance” [Ts + Ds] and its “braking distance” [Ds]. The braking distance [Ds] is the distance over which the host vehicle is actually braking. Yet the host vehicle can also wait for a period of time after the preceding vehicle begins to brake to start braking itself. The distance the host vehicle travels over that period of time is called the “free running distance” and is labeled Ts in the drawings. (Interested parties can consult the glossary the examiner wrote in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection section of the Non-Final Rejection dated August 21, 2025, which was the first rejection of this application.)
What does it mean when claim 1 recites:
wherein the safe stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [CS] is determined as a sum of
(i) an inter-vehicle distance C], detected via the sensor device, and [similar to old claim 4. This amendment is supported by at least paragraph 0118 of the present published disclosure.]
(ii) a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X].
The “safe stopping distance” of the host vehicle is distance CS. The recited portion of claim 1 above says that CS is the sum of (i) and (ii). Point (i) is the inter-vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle, which is C. Amended Fig. 10, shows that the safe stopping distance, CS, equals C + S. Since point (i) is C, point (ii) must be S. Point (ii) in the claim recites “a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X].” According to paragraph 0125, distance X is “the collision-avoiding safety distance ‘X’.” It can be preset and can be thought of as a safety margin.
Again, what is: “a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X].” One way to think about it is to look at Fig. 10. In that figure, X is 3 meters. The host vehicle has its free running distance Ts plus its braking distance Ds plus the braking distance of the preceding vehicle Df to stop. The host vehicle does not want to stop precisely before the preceding vehicle’s bumper so the system adds a safety margin X.
The claim says take C and add “a difference” between Df and X. Df – X = S. So the claim is saying: add C + S.
As explained in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the first rejection, the vertical line in Fig. 10, for example, which is right at the preceding vehicle’s rear bumper before the rear vehicle begins braking, is a datum for the system. There are a few amounts to keep in mind related to this datum. One is how far the host vehicle has to stop. Another is how far the host vehicle travels before coming to a stop. In terms the first amount, which is how far the host vehicle has to stop, that is C + Df. That is to say that the host vehicle has the initial inter-vehicle distance plus the stopping distance of the preceding vehicle in which to stop. In terms of the second amount, which is how far the host vehicle travels to actually stop, that depends on Ts+Ds. That is to say that the host vehicle takes its free running distance plus the distance over which is actually brakes to stop.
What are all the other quantities in Fig. 10, such as S and X? X, as has already been discussed, is a preset safety distance. None of the drawings show the host vehicle actually stopping a distance X away from the preceding vehicle. In Fig. 8, the host vehicle, VEH, after braking, ends up right at the datum.
In the present published disclosure, distance S is the “safe stopping margin”. According to paragraph 0149 it is “obtained by subtracting the collision-avoiding safety distance ‘X’ from the braking distance Df of the preceding vehicle. So S is a determined quantity from math. X is preset. If you subtract Df from X you get S.
So returning to the question once again: Again, what is: “a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X].” It is simply S.
So in the claim, point (ii) is S. So the claim says CS = C + S. What is CS? It is a “safe stopping distance”. It is not the precise distance at which the host vehicle needs in order to not collie with the preceding vehicle in the case the preceding vehicle slams on the brakes. The host vehicle doesn’t want to come within a hair of the preceding vehicle. Rather, it wants some buffer distance between them when they both come to a complete stop. So C+Df is the distance over which the host vehicle needs to stop. The distance the host vehicle takes to actually stop is Ts+Ds. If you want an additional buffer X then (C+Df)-(Ts+Ds) should equal S. In other words, the distance the host vehicle takes to actually stop should be shorter than the distance it has to stop. And the amount it should be shorter can be preset to S.
What claim 1 has done is said, well, I can call a quantity a “safe stopping distance of the host vehicle” and name it CS. I can then define it as (i)+(ii). Which is to say CS is defined as C + (Df-X).
Why wouldn’t the “safe stopping distance” of the host vehicle (CS), just be C (the inter-vehicle distance) + Df (the stopping distance of the preceding vehicle)? Because CS is the distance over which the host vehicle wants to come to a stop. It is not the distance over which it must come to a stop, it is that distance plus a safety margin X. So the host vehicle wants to back into the amount of time it can essentially free run before needing to slam on the brakes while still not stopping right at the rear bumper of the preceding vehicle. In other words, the host vehicle really does have the inter-vehicle distance C plus the braking distance of the preceding vehicle Df to stop. But, the host vehicle wants to give itself a little less distance than that so that there will be a buffer when it comes to a stop. That distance is X. So the host vehicle Takes C+Df-X.
Then the host vehicle essentially says to itself, ok, I know how much distance I have in order to stop (with a safety margin). Now, how long can I wait before I have to slam on the brakes? That depends on the “braking distance of the host vehicle,” Ds. Ds + Ts should equal C+Df-X in order for the host vehicle to stop a distance X from the preceding vehicle. If the host vehicle stops before that, that’s great. If it stops after that, but still not at the bumper of the preceding vehicle, that’s still ok, at least no collision occurs. If Ds+Ts is actually > C+Df, that is no good. That is a collision.
These three scenarios match the three areas recited in the claim, respectively as:
a safety area,
a collision risk area, and
a collision area
Does the present disclosure support amended claim 1 regarding finding these three areas? Paragraph 0097 teaches that “the processor 100 may determines that the vehicle VEH is in a safe driving state”. The host vehicle’s speed will be maintained in that case. Paragraph 0098 teaches that “The processor 100 may determine that the vehicle VEH is located within…the collision risk area.” In that case the host vehicle may output an alarm and determine if a lane change is possible. Paragraph 0099 teaches that “the processor 100 may determine that the vehicle VEH is located within a collision area”. In that case, the host vehicle will try to change lanes or slow down.
What does it mean when claim 1 recites: “compare a stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [Ts+Ds] with the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS] and the first value”. As discussed earlier, there is a difference between a “stopping distance” and a “safe stopping distance”. The safe stopping distance is defined at the end of the claim and involves the preset safety buffer X. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the processor can obtain “the stopping distance by calculating a sum of the free running distance Ts and the braking distance Ds of the [host] vehicle VEH. The word “compare” is more vague than a definite mathematical term such as “subtract”.
The ”first value,” according to claim 1 is the sum of “a preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X] and the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS],”.
But CS is C + S, and S is Df-X so CS is C + Df – X.
Then the claim recites:
compare a stopping distance of the [host] vehicle [Ts+Ds] with the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS] and the first value,
This can mean what is shown in the inequality in Fig. 9, names a stopping distance is compared as: CS [C+Df-X] < STOPPING DISTANCE OF THE HOST VEHICLE < CS+X [which is C+Df -X+X, which is just C+Df].
In the examiner’s opinion, prior art that teaching functionally executing the same comparison using different words for the terms, is still valid prior art. As just shown, the claim has a “-X + X” operation. If prior art discusses this in a simplified manner it would be valid. Performing a -X + X does not patentably distinguish the present claim from art that lacks only this. In the Diamond v. Diehr case, an equation was used to determine when to automatically execute a function of a machine. If someone came along and applied for a patent for an identical machine, except the equation included a +1 and then a -1, would that be patentably distinguishable? No. The present case is analogous. All kinds of terms are introduced, including terms that cancel. Prior art that teaches the simplified version of these expressions is valid art. This may mean that line-by-line mapping is difficult. But that is because the prior art, in this case Foster, may not teach every single term because some of the terms in the claim end up canceling. But when reduced down to what these lines mean, Foster does meet these limitations. The examiner does not find any teaching in the claim that states that computational efficiency is gained by performing the calculations the way they are. Rather, it seems efficiency would be gained if the operations and their discussion were simplified.
How does present claim 1 relate to Foster in particular? The “Response to Arguments” section of the last detailed action included a long discussion of Foster. Foster basically looks at all the distances and braking times and determines whether the host vehicle can maintain the same speed, slow down gently, slow down using hard braking, or change lanes.
Foster paragraph 1117, “The Minimum Gap can be defined as the gap that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of autonomous vehicle immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop. The minimum gap may assume the most conservative distance taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time, the brake system’s reaction time, the system’s maximum available deceleration, the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.” This teaches at least the scenario of a “safety area,” which is the case in which the host vehicle has plenty of room to stop if needed.
Foster paragraph 1137 teaches that the host vehicle will “minimize….decelerations” when possible. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there is no need for a “safety critical lane change,” the system will not decelerate at greater than 3 m/s2. So in Foster, when softer decelerations can safely be made, they will. When hard braking is required, the vehicle will brake hard.
Foster paragraph 0357 teaches that the host vehicle can make a “critical safety bias,” i.e., emergency lane change, when there is an “abnormal stopped vehicle” or other good reason, such as when the host vehicle “trajectory is predicted to intersect with the trajectory of a merging vehicle”. Why in this case, doesn’t the host vehicle simply brake? Because the host vehicle predicts that the vehicles will intersect or collide. How could the vehicle of Foster get itself into a position in which such a thing could happen when it employs a safety buffer, reaction time, etc.? That answer is that another vehicle can cut off the host vehicle, including potentially swerving into the host vehicle’s current driving lane and stopping.
The citations of the two above paragraphs teach the scenarios of “a collision risk area,” and “a collision area” as recited in present claim 1. The vehicle in Foster, as shown in Fig. 6 below, is clearly seeking to keep a comfortable safety margin. When the host vehicle needs to it slows down gently, or it slows down quickly when necessarily. When even that will not prevent a collision, the vehicle may try and swerve.
How about new claims 21 and 22. Does Foster or other prior art teach these claims? Let us look at claim 21. The claim recites:
The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the safety area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being less than the safe stopping distance;
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision risk area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance and less than the first value; and
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the first value.
Claim 21 defines a collision risk area as being “equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance and less than the first value”. Claim 1 recited finding “a first value by summing a preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X] and the safe stopping distance [of the host vehicle] [CS],
So the inequality in claim 21 is the one shown in Fig. 9 “CS < STOPPING DISTANCE OF THE HOST VEHICLE (60m) < CS + X”. This is the same as C+(Df-X) < STOPPING DISTANCE OF THE HOST VEHICLE (60m) < C+Df-X+X. That is the same as C+Df-X< STOPPING DISTANCE OF THE HOST VEHICLE (60m) < C+Df. In other words, this inequality determines if the host vehicle will stop within the safety buffer area that the host vehicle has set for itself.
It seems to the examiner that Foster teaches determining that the host vehicle is in a safety area. Foster teaches a system in which braking is defined by distances. When the system has at least a minimum following distance plus an additional margin of safety the system knows it can continue cruising or has plenty of time to brake if needed, as indicated by the fact that it will chose a gentle braking rate in this scenario.
It further seems to the examiner that Foster at least comes close to teaching a system that determines that the host vehicle is in a collision risk area. Foster teaches that it may need to brake hard rather than softly, yet the vehicle still does not need to swerve. Based on the entire disclosure of Foster, the range between the point where the switch from soft to hard braking occurs and the point where the vehicle determines to swerve could be thought of as the collision risk area. This is especially true since Foster already teaches a safety buffer.
And yet Foster does not spell this inequality out, as claims 21 and 22 do. Foster does not state explicitly that the point at which hard braking is required is when the host vehicle will come to a stop inside the buffer. Perhaps the hard braking is executed to keep the vehicle outside of that buffer, it isn’t explicitly stated.
Foster teaches determining that the host vehicle can brake softly. Foster also teaches adding a safety margin to the distance between itself and the preceding vehicle. Foster further teaches determining that the host vehicle needs to brake hard. Foster also teaches determining if the host vehicle needs to swerve.
Foster does not explicitly in a crystal clear manner teach that determining that the host vehicle will need to brake hard means that the host vehicle will end up in the safety buffer area that the host vehicle has set for itself. This seems implied, but it is not explicitly taught.
Please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 5, 6, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US2022/0348227).
Regarding claim 1, Foster discloses:
A device for controlling a vehicle (see Fig. 1), the device comprising:
a sensor device configured to detect a preceding vehicle of the vehicle (see Fig. 1, items 144);
a control module configured to control driving and steering of the vehicle (see Fig. 1, item 146 and paragraph 0061); and
a processor configured to (see Fig. 1, item 170)
determine a braking distance of the preceding vehicle based on a maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle (see Foster Fig. 6, attached above, and paragraph 0275 for a host vehicle system that can determine “the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on…[the] type of [leading] vehicle, load, etc.….and the speed of autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle. See paragraphs 1109-1145. In particular, see paragraph 1117 for determining the minimum gap a following vehicle can leave been a preceding vehicle and still stop in time given the leading vehicle’s “maximum available deceleration”. See paragraph 1117 for determining “the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.”),
determine a safe stopping distance of the vehicle in proportion to the braking distance of the preceding vehicle (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117, “The Minimum Gap can be defined as the gap that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of autonomous vehicle immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop. The minimum gap may assume the most conservative distance taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time, the brake system’s reaction time, the system’s maximum available deceleration, the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.” Emphasis added),
determine a first value by summing a preset collision-avoiding safety distance and the safe stopping distance,
compare a stopping distance of the [host] vehicle with the safe stopping distance and the first value (for this bullet and the one above, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117, 1135-38 and 1145. These paragraphs show that the host vehicle knows how far it has to stop and how far it needs to stop.),
determine, based on a result of the comparison host] vehicle is located among
a safety area (see Foster paragraph 1117, for “The Minimum Gap can be defined as the gap that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of autonomous vehicle immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop. The minimum gap may assume the most conservative distance taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time, the brake system’s reaction time, the system’s maximum available deceleration, the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.” This teaches at least the scenario of a “safety area,” which is the case in which the host vehicle has plenty of room to stop if needed.),
a collision risk area, and
a collision area (for this bullet and the one above see Foster paragraph 1137 which teaches that the host vehicle will “minimize….decelerations” when possible. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there is no need for a “safety critical lane change,” the system will not decelerate at greater than 3 m/s2. So in Foster, when softer decelerations can safely be made, they will. When hard braking is required, the vehicle will brake hard.
Foster paragraph 0357 teaches that the host vehicle can make a “critical safety bias,” i.e., emergency lane change, when there is an “abnormal stopped vehicle” or other good reason, such as when the host vehicle “trajectory is predicted to intersect with the trajectory of a merging vehicle”. Why in this case, doesn’t the host vehicle simply brake? Because the host vehicle predicts that the vehicles will intersect or collide. How could the vehicle of Foster get itself into a position in which such a thing could happen when it employs a safety buffer, reaction time, etc.? That answer is that another vehicle can cut off the host vehicle, including potentially swerving into the host vehicle’s current driving lane and stopping.
The citations of the two above paragraphs teach the scenarios of “a collision risk area,” and “a collision area” as recited in present claim 1. The vehicle in Foster, as shown in Fig. 6 below, is clearly seeking to keep a comfortable safety margin. When the host vehicle needs to it slows down gently, or it slows down quickly when necessarily. When even that will not prevent a collision, the vehicle may try and swerve.), and
control the control module based on the determined area (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs 0357, 1117, 1135-38 and 1145.),
wherein the stopping distance of the [host] vehicle is determined based on a free running distance of the [host] vehicle and a braking distance of the [host] vehicle (see Foster, Fig. 6 which includes a buffer and minimum gap.), and
wherein the safe stopping distance of the [host] vehicle is determined as a sum of
(i) an inter-vehicle distance , detected via the sensor device, and
(ii) a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle and the preset collision-avoiding safety distance (for this bullet and the two before it, see Foster Fig. 6 for a system that determines how long it will take the host vehicle (labeled “autonomous vehicle” in Fig. 6) to stop based on a free running distance (labeled the “efficiency buffer” in Fig. 6). See paragraph 1117 for “taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time” and the “the system’s maximum available deceleration” among other factors when determining the stopping distance of the host vehicle. See paragraph 0275 for a host vehicle that maintains a “minimum gap distance. The minimum gap distance may be defined as the gap (i.e., the distance between the rear of the vehicle ahead and the front end of the autonomous vehicle) that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of the autonomous…immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop.” In Fig. 6, the distance which the host vehicle needs to stop is at least within the minimum following distance. See paragraph 1135 for using sensors to detect inter-vehicle distance.).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Foster et al. (US2022/0348227 A1), Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 5, Foster discloses the device of claim 1.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim [[4]] 1, wherein
the processor is further configured to:
determine a safe stopping margin distance by subtracting the preset collision-avoiding safety distance from the braking distance of the preceding vehicle; and
calculate the safe stopping distance by calculating a sum of the inter-vehicle distance and the safe stopping margin distance (for both of these bullets see Foster Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117.).
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses the device of claim [[5]] 1,.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim [[5]] 1,, wherein the processor is further configured to
control the control module to maintain a driving state such that the inter-vehicle distance is not reduced based on the vehicle being located in the safe area (see Foster paragraph 1137 for a steady cruise system in which the vehicle maintains a constant gap),
wherein the safe area is an area in which the safe stopping distance of the vehicle exceeds [[a]] the stopping distance of the vehicle (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117 and 1136-1137. According to paragraph 1117 there will be a distance between the vehicles when they both come “to a complete stop”.).
Regarding claim 11, Foster discloses:
A method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising (see Figs. 16-22):
identifying a maximum deceleration of a preceding vehicle (see Foster Fig. 6, attached above, and paragraph 0275 for a host vehicle system that can determine “the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on…[the] type of [leading] vehicle, load, etc….and the speed of autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle. See paragraphs 1109-1145. In particular, see paragraph 1117 for determining the minimum gap a following vehicle can leave been a preceding vehicle and still stop in time given the leading vehicle’s “maximum available deceleration”. See paragraph 1117 for determining “the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.”);
determining a braking distance of the preceding vehicle based on the maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle (see paragraph 1117);
determining a first value by summing a preset collision-avoiding safety distance and the safe stopping distance;
comparing a stopping distance of the vehicle with the safe stopping distance and the first value (for this bullet and the one above, see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117, 1135-38 and 1145. These paragraphs show that the host vehicle knows how far it has to stop and how far it needs to stop.);
determining, based on a result of the comparison
a safety area (see Foster paragraph 1117, for “The Minimum Gap can be defined as the gap that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of autonomous vehicle immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop. The minimum gap may assume the most conservative distance taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time, the brake system’s reaction time, the system’s maximum available deceleration, the maximum possible deceleration characteristics of the leading vehicle based on type (assume the worst case scenario for type of vehicle, load, etc.), and the speed of the autonomous vehicle and the leading vehicle.” This teaches at least the scenario of a “safety area,” which is the case in which the host vehicle has plenty of room to stop if needed.),
a collision risk area, and
a collision area (for this bullet and the one above see Foster paragraph 1137 which teaches that the host vehicle will “minimize….decelerations” when possible. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there is no need for a “safety critical lane change,” the system will not decelerate at greater than 3 m/s2. So in Foster, when softer decelerations can safely be made, they will. When hard braking is required, the vehicle will brake hard.
Foster paragraph 0357 teaches that the host vehicle can make a “critical safety bias,” i.e., emergency lane change, when there is an “abnormal stopped vehicle” or other good reason, such as when the host vehicle “trajectory is predicted to intersect with the trajectory of a merging vehicle”. Why in this case, doesn’t the host vehicle simply brake? Because the host vehicle predicts that the vehicles will intersect or collide. How could the vehicle of Foster get itself into a position in which such a thing could happen when it employs a safety buffer, reaction time, etc.? That answer is that another vehicle can cut off the host vehicle, including potentially swerving into the host vehicle’s current driving lane and stopping.
The citations of the two above paragraphs teach the scenarios of “a collision risk area,” and “a collision area” as recited in present claim 1. The vehicle in Foster, as shown in Fig. 6 below, is clearly seeking to keep a comfortable safety margin. When the host vehicle needs to it slows down gently, or it slows down quickly when necessarily. When even that will not prevent a collision, the vehicle may try and swerve.); and
controlling a control module, configured to control driving and steering of the vehicle, based on the determined area (see Fig. 6 and paragraphs 0357, 1117, 1135-38 and 1145.)),
wherein the stopping distance of the vehicle is determined based on a free running distance of the vehicle and a braking distance of the vehicle (see Foster, Fig. 6 which includes a buffer and minimum gap.), and
wherein the safe stopping distance of the vehicle is determined as a sum of
(i) an inter-vehicle distance , detected via a sensor device, and
(ii) a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle and the preset collision- avoiding safety distance (for this bullet and the two before it, see Foster Fig. 6 for a system that determines how long it will take the host vehicle (labeled “autonomous vehicle” in Fig. 6) to stop based on a free running distance (labeled the “efficiency buffer” in Fig. 6). See paragraph 1117 for “taking into account the autonomous system’s reaction time” and the “the system’s maximum available deceleration” among other factors when determining the stopping distance of the host vehicle. See paragraph 0275 for a host vehicle that maintains a “minimum gap distance. The minimum gap distance may be defined as the gap (i.e., the distance between the rear of the vehicle ahead and the front end of the autonomous vehicle) that ensures the critical stopped distance is maintained in the event that the vehicle in front of the autonomous…immediately brakes and comes to a complete stop.” In Fig. 6, the distance which the host vehicle needs to stop is at least within the minimum following distance. See paragraph 1135 for using sensors to detect inter-vehicle distance.).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, they are, respectively, substantially similar to claims 5 and 6. Please see the rejection for those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7-10, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US2022/0348227 A1) in view of Broll et al. (US2019/0232962 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Foster and Broll teach the device of claim 1.
Yet Foster does not explicitly further teach:
The device of claim 1, further comprising:
a communication device configured to receive information on the maximum deceleration from the preceding vehicle.
However Broll teaches:
a communication device configured to receive information on the maximum deceleration from the preceding vehicle (in the present published disclosure, paragraph 0073 and 0081 teach that this claim can mean that the host vehicle receives the maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle. That is what “information on the maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle” means. With that in mind, see Broll, paragraph 0027 for transmitting “information regarding an emergency braking” using V2V. See paragraph 0030 for using V2V to transmit the “maximum preceding vehicle deceleration”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Foster, to add the additional features of: calculate a braking distance of the preceding vehicle based on a maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle, as taught by Broll. The motivation for doing so would be to maintain the “optimum” following distance to avoid a collision in worst-case scenarios, as recognized by Broll (see paragraphs 0003 and 0005).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Combining Foster with Broll would be especially obvious because Foster at least strongly teaches toward what Broll explicitly states. See Foster paragraph 0072 for vehicle communicating with V2V.
Regarding claim 7, Foster teaches the device of claim [[6]] 1,.
Foster further teaches:
The device of claim [[6]] 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
wherein the collision risk area is an area in which the stopping distance of the vehicle is equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and is smaller than the first valuesee Foster Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117. The vehicle takes into account not only its own maximum deceleration but also its own reaction times and still has to brake hard in contrast to decelerating “at a magnitude that is less than a pre-determined maximum deceleration rate”. Minimum decelerations are used in some cases, however, as taught in paragraph 1641, showing that in some cases the host vehicle has plenty of space to slow down and does not need to consider reaction times or margins, which are safety critical cases as taught in paragraph 1145.).
Yet Foster does not explicitly further teach:
output an alarm using an alarm device based on the vehicle being located in [[a]] the collision risk area,
However, Broll teaches:
output an alarm using an alarm device based on the vehicle being located in [[a]] the collision risk area (see paragraph 0059 for a warning signal SW).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Foster, to add the additional features of: output an alarm using an alarm device based on the vehicle being located in [[a]] the collision risk area, as taught by Broll. The motivation for doing so would be to maintain the “optimum” following distance to avoid a collision in worst-case scenarios, as recognized by Broll (see paragraphs 0003 and 0005).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 8, Foster and Broll teach the device of claim 7.
Foster further teaches:
The device of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to
determine whether a lane change is possible based on the vehicle being located in the collision risk area (see Fig. 13 and paragraph 0283 for biasing past lane lines as needed to avoid a collision. See paragraphs 0531, 0544 and 0547 for critical safety lane changes due to following distances. See also paragraph 0527 for determining the critical distance that must be maintained between the vehicles. See paragraph 0549 for the teaching that rather than slam on the brakes a host vehicle can change lanes. See also paragraph 0844).
Regarding claim 9, Foster and Broll teach the device of claim 1.
Foster further teaches:
The device of claim [[7]] 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
the processor is further configured to perform a lane change based on the vehicle being located in the collision area (see paragraphs 1144-1145. Despite all the buffers and margins in Fig. 6, the vehicle determines it still must make an evasive maneuver. See paragraphs 0531, 0544 and 0547 for critical safety lane changes due to following distances. See also paragraph 0527 for determining the critical distance that must be maintained between the vehicles. See paragraph 0549 for the teaching that rather than slam on the brakes a host vehicle can change lanes. See also paragraph 0844),
wherein the collision area is an area in which the stopping distance of the vehicle is equal to or greater than the first value see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117 for determining the most vehicle’s “maximum available deceleration” as well as the margins and buffers yet the host vehicle still needing to make an evasive maneuver as discussed in paragraphs 1144-1145.).
Regarding claim 10, Foster and Broll teach the device of claim 9.
Foster further teaches:
The device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured
to decelerate the vehicle based on the lane change is being impossible (see paragraph 0595 for a rule that “an autonomous vehicle may never make a lane change that will result in a collision with another vehicle”. See also paragraph 1553-1555 for a host vehicle being instructed to slow down and stop or if not, hit a forward object rather than change lanes.).
Regarding claims 12 and 17-20, they are, respectively, substantially similar to claims 2 and 7-10. Please see the rejection for those claims.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US2022/0348227 A1) in view of Nister et al. (US2019/0250622 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Foster teaches the device of claim 1.
Yet Foster does not explicitly further teach:
A device wherein
the processor is further configured to output the maximum deceleration via artificial intelligence learning with a size and a manufacturer of the preceding vehicle as input values.
However, Nister teaches:
the processor is further configured to output the maximum deceleration via artificial intelligence learning with a size and a manufacturer of the preceding vehicle as input values (see paragraph 0057 for “In some examples, a parameter(s) of an object may be an output(s) of a machine learning model(s), such as a convolutional neural network that receives at least some of the sensor data 102 as an input(s). In further examples, the object analyzer 106 may use at least one machine learning model(s) to classify one or more of the objects captured by the sensor data 102. Examples of classifications include stationary, moving, vehicle, car, truck, pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcycle, etc.” In this paragraph sensor data is an input to a machine learning model, and one or more parameters of an object are the output.
See paragraph 0058 for teaches that “The object analyzer 106 may use the classifications to determine one or more of the parameters. For example, a classification may be provided as an input to a machine learning model(s) used to determine one or more of the parameters. As another example, one or more classifications and/or other object information (e.g., other parameters) may be applied to a lookup table(s) or otherwise used to lookup, determine, and/or calculate one or more of the parameters. As an example, a classification may include a vehicle model or type (e.g., sedan, truck, motorcycle, SUV), which has one or more predetermined shapes and/or dimensions, braking capabilities, handling capabilities, acceleration capabilities, maximum velocity, maximum acceleration, etc., that may be used to define one or more parameters. In some examples, a machine learning model(s), such as a convolutional neural network, may be trained to concurrently output a classification of an object and one or more of the parameters of the object.”
See paragraph 0059 for “As examples, the object analyzer 106 may implement object perception using machine learning model(s) (e.g., a neural network(s)) that may be specifically configured (e.g., trained) to recognize certain objects and/or features of the objects. One or more trained machine learning models (e.g., trained and deployed for use by the safe arrival time system 100) used by the object analyzer 106 may determine the presence and/or location of an object (e.g., X and Y coordinates), the object's pose (φ), the obstacle's dimensions (e.g., Width and Length), and/or a classification for the object. Further, a trained machine learning model (e.g., a neural network(s)) may be used to determine the objects maximum acceleration (A.sub.MAX+) and maximum deceleration (A.sub.MAX−).” In summary, paragraph 0058 specifically mentions a vehicle model and dimensions as determined from machine learning classification. Paragraph 0059 teaches that the machine learning model can identify such objects and then determine the vehicle’s “maximum deceleration”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Foster, to add the additional features of: the processor is configured to output the maximum deceleration via artificial intelligence learning with a size and a manufacturer of the preceding vehicle as input values, as taught by Nister. The motivation for doing so would be to enable safe operation of a vehicle, as recognized by Nister (see paragraph 0003).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claims 13 it is substantially similar to claims 3. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 21 and 22 are is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claim 21 recites:
The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the safety area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being less than the safe stopping distance;
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision risk area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance and less than the first value; and
determine the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the first value.
Claim 22 recites:
The method of claim 11, wherein
determining, based on the result of the comparison, the area which the vehicle is located includes:
determining the area in which the vehicle is located as the safety area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being less than the safe stopping distance;
determining the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision risk area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance and less than the first value; and
determining the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the first value.
The closest prior art for both claims is Foster. Foster teaches the first and last bullets because Foster teaches determining when the vehicle can simply cruise and when it needs to swerve. But Foster does not explicitly teach “determining the area in which the vehicle is located as the collision risk area based on the stopping distance of the vehicle being equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance and less than the first value,” as recited in the present claims.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Yang (US2022/0055619). See Yang, Fig. 3 below, and paragraph 0083 for a host vehicle that calculates “the absolute value of the relative distance between the host vehicle 100 and the forward vehicle 200 is equal to or less than the sum of the length of the front margin section “D” and the length of the front allowance section “E” (S140)”. The system can also determine that this quantity is greater than. But this is for determining if the host vehicle can make a lane change.
PNG
media_image2.png
1012
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights