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 November 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2-11, and 14-20 have been amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “II. Amendments to the Specification” that the title of the invention has been amended to make it more descriptive. The examiner accepts the new title and withdraws the objection made in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated August 21, 2025.
The applicant argues under the heading “III. Objection to the Drawings” that Figs. 7-10 have been amended for clarity. The examiner accepts the amendments and withdraws the objection.
The applicant argues under the heading “IV. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)” that the claims have been amended for clarity. The examiner accepts the amendments and withdraws the rejection.
The applicant argues under the heading “V. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103” that the claims as amended are not taught by the cited prior art. In particular, the applicant argues that claim 1 is not taught by Foster et al. (US2022/0348227 A1) in view of Broll et al. (US2019/0232962 A1). In particular the applicant argues that “Foster does not disclose or render obvious anything about determining in which area the vehicle is located based on a distance between the vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and controlling the vehicle based on a type of the area, much less based on an area among a safety area, a collision avoid area, and a collision area, in the manner now recited in claim 1.”
Claim 1 now recites the following:
A device for controlling a vehicle, the device comprising:
a sensor device configured to detect a preceding vehicle of the vehicle;
a control module configured to control driving and steering of the vehicle; and
a processor configured to
determine a braking distance of the preceding vehicle based on a maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle,
determine a safe stopping distance of the vehicle [seems to more or less mean: determine how far the host vehicle has to brake. This is more or less the same as the above bullet]
determine, based on the safe stopping distance [of the vehicle, known as CX see paragraph 0120] and a stopping distance of the vehicle, an area in which the vehicle is located among
a safety area,
a collision avoid area, and
a collision area
control the control module based on the area,
wherein the safe stopping distance is determined based on a free running distance of the vehicle and a braking distance.
What does the present claim 1 mean in a broad reasonable interpretation and does it have written description? Does the original disclosure teaches three distinct areas and controlling the vehicle “based on the area”?
To determine that, it is first necessary to determine what these three areas of “a safety area,” a collision avoid area, and a collision area” as recited in claim 1 mean.
The “safety area” in claim 1 corresponds to, in one reasonable interpretation, the “safe driving area” in paragraph 0126 or the “safe travel area” in Fig. 11, S1207. According to Fig. 8 and paragraph 0126, the host vehicle is in a “safe driving area” when “the safe stopping distance CS of the vehicle YEH exceeds the stopping distance. Put another way, the “stopping distance of host vehicle ≤ [the safe stopping distance] CS”. This is seen in Fig. 11 with a YES out of S1206. Note that paragraph 0120 teaches that the term “CS” is the “safe stopping distance.” Thus in Fig. 8, the host vehicle VEH stops before reaching the CS distance. In this case the host vehicle might not even need to brake hard since there was room to spare, even before reaching the margin distance ‘X’. The examiner agrees that at least this much has written description.
How about the “a collision avoid area” in claim 1. What does it mean? Note that claim 1 attempts to introduce a new term called “a collision avoid area”. This is term is different from the term “a collision risk area” now recited in claim 7. Claim 7 now defines the collision risk area as follows: “the collision risk area is an area in which of the vehicle is equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance of the vehicle [CS] and is smaller than a sum of the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and the collision-avoiding safety distance [CS+X].” This “sum of the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and the collision-avoiding safety distance” is CS + X.
Thus, in terms of the “collision risk area” in claim 7 as it is defined in claim 7, it relates to Fig. 9, which features the same equation as in claim 7. Since in Fig. 9, the host vehicle VEH is in the area marked by an ‘X’ it must be that “a collision risk area” in claim 7 is that area (distance, really) marked by the X. According to paragraphs 0125 and 0138, the distance marked by an ‘X’ is called the “collision-avoiding safety distance.” Furthermore, according to paragraph 0132, the processor can determine that the host vehicle is in a “collision risk area” when “the stopping distance of the vehicle YEH is equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance CS and falls within a range smaller than the sum of the safe stopping distance CS and the collision-avoiding safety distance 'X'.” Thus, the term “collision risk area” is in the original disclosure and has written description.
But can “a collision avoid area” in claim 1 be interpreted as the same area as “a collision risk area” in claim 7? Paragraph 0094 teaches that the collision-avoiding safety distance ‘X’ can be set in advance. The original disclosure did not recite “a collision avoid area” and this term seems awfully close to “the collision-avoiding safety distance” ‘X,’ recited in paragraph 0094 and elsewhere. As the above paragraph showed, this distance ‘X’ corresponds to “a collision risk area” in claim 7. Therefore, “a collision avoid area” in claim 1 will be interpreted for examination purposes as identical to “a collision risk area” in claim 1. The two terms that mean the same thing, which if changed to match could create an antecedent basis issue. Since “a collision avoid area” is not recited in the original disclosure, as far as the examiner can tell, it is rejected as new matter.
In one broad reasonable interpretation of Fig. 9 and the “collision risk area,” if a preceding vehicle slams on the brakes, the host vehicle behind it can still avoid a collision if it stops inside the collision-avoiding safety distance ‘X.’ As already mentioned, according to paragraph 0132, and as seen in Fig. 9, the host vehicle is in a “collision risk area” when “the stopping distance of the vehicle YEH is equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance CS and falls within a range smaller than the sum of the safe stopping distance CS and the collision-avoiding safety distance 'X'.”
Note that the difference between Figs. 8 and 9, which is the difference between the “safety area” and the “collision avoid area.” In Fig. 8 the front of the host vehicle after braking does not protrude into the “X” region, which is a safety buffer, while in Fig. 9 the host vehicle does protrude into the safety buffer. This safety buffer is referred to as the “collision-avoiding safety distance” X in paragraphs 0125 and 0138.
Finally, what does the term “a collision area” in claim 1 refer to? The “collision area” in claim 1 corresponds to, in one reasonable interpretation, “the collision area” recited in paragraph 0139. This paragraph and area relates to Fig. 10. The host vehicle is in “a collision area” when “the stopping distance of the vehicle YEH is greater than the sum of the safe stopping distance CS and the collision-avoiding safety distance 'X'.”
Note that Fig. 11 relates to the three areas in claim 1. A YES out of S1206 relates to the “a safety area,” a YES out of S1208 relates to “a collision risk area” (which is also how “a collision avoid are” will be interpreted), and a NO out of S1208 is related to “a collision area”. When the host vehicle realizes there will be a collision (NO out of S1208) it looks to perform a lane change to avoid the collision.
In one reasonable interpretation, when the host vehicle ends up in a “collision area” after both vehicles come to a stop, it means that the host vehicle will not only fail to stop in time but will actually move through the entire buffer distance X as well before stopping. There will be a collision, at least if the host vehicle does not swerve.
In one interpretation, the current teaching relates to older versions of automatic braking in which a vehicle would either stop in time, or not. But the present application adds a safety margin, so even if the host vehicle would not have stopped in time before, it could now. It could at least if it met one condition: that is that the host vehicle not run through the safety margin. If the host vehicle would have bumped the forward vehicle just slightly, such as by 1 in, then if the preset safety margin was set to two inches, then the accident would be avoided with the introduction of the safety margin ‘X’. But if the host vehicle would have plowed into the forward vehicle by a foot, then the accident would still occur, even after adding the 2 inch safety margin. It is theoretically possible to set the margin so that an accident would never occur, though that would have other drawbacks.
In another interpretation, the addition of the “collision-avoiding safety distance” ‘X’, which this examiner has been calling a safety buffer or safety margin can be thought of as a reaction time of the driver, braking system, or computer system, such as the time it takes the host vehicle to process information and commands. In that sense, when the host vehicle stops in a “safety area,” that is of little consequence. In those cases, there is plenty of time to stop. What is of most consequence is the “collision avoid area” and the “collision area.” If the vehicle stops in the “collision avoid area” an accident will not occur. But if it stops in the “collision area” an accident will occur, unless the vehicle can swerve. If an accident will occur, the host vehicle is instructed to change lanes to avoid the accident, according to claim 9.
The examiner thinks that Foster largely teaches the limitations of present claim 1. Foster Fig. 6 attached below and paragraphs 1117, 1135, and 1137 show that Foster adds various buffers and safety margins, such as the “efficiency buffer” and the “minimum gap” to the stopping distance of the host vehicle (the “minimum following distance”) so that the host vehicle can stop in time and still have some margin between itself and the forward vehicle as well as some time for processing commands.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Foster et al. (US2022/0348227 A1), Fig. 6.
As taught in 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.” Foster paragraph 1117. Thus, in Fig. 6, the “minimum gap” includes what the present disclosure calls C as well as X.
As taught in paragraphs 1135, the host vehicle can maintain a “predetermined critical minimum following distance” to any proceeding vehicle in order “to prevent collision”. According to paragraph 1137 the host vehicle can use an “efficiency buffer” to “minimize…deceleration…to keep a following distance more than the minimum gap”. This means that the host vehicle knows when it does not need to brake hard and can limit sharp braking to only when necessary.
If Foster includes all these buffers would the host vehicle ever need to change lanes? Because another vehicle could change lanes right in front of the host vehicle. If that happens, potentially including sharp braking by the forward vehicle, the host vehicle will need to swerve to avoid the collision.
A decent amount of prior art, including Foster, teaches systems that determine whether or not a host vehicle can stop in-lane in time, or will need to swerve. 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”. A trajectory can including not only seeing that a forward vehicle is cutting off the host vehicle but also, potentially, braking hard at the same time. In those cases, Foster teaches executing an emergency lane change.
But what about the teaching in the present claim about a “safety area”? As previously mentioned, this is an area that represents a stop for which there is plenty of space and does not present a great concern. There is plenty of room to make the stop, so much so that the host vehicle does not even get into the buffer area ‘X’. In other words, even if a safety margin or other buffer such as a braking system pre-charge, driver reaction time, or electronics system reaction time were not included in the time to stop, the system would still be able to stop before a collision. This “safety area” does not appear again besides in the independent claims.
Even if the “safety area” is not further expounded in the dependent claims, the prior art still has to teach it. One example of such a teaching could involve a system that determines that the host vehicle has so much space between itself and the rear bumper of the forward vehicle as the forward vehicle comes to a stop that the host vehicle does not have to brake at maximum deceleration in order to avoid a collision. That is common enough in the prior art, which often considers braking efficiency and/or occupant comfort when considering how hard to brake, while still prioritizing collision avoidance.
In fact, Foster is one such piece of prior art. Foster teaches that the host vehicle can use efficient braking methods when possible, such as in paragraph 1137. This will “minimize….decelerations” and improve energy efficiency. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there are 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. Finally, when hard braking alone will not avoid the collision, swerving can be performed.
Note that claim 1 also teaches that “the safe stopping distance is determined based on a free running distance of the vehicle and a braking distance.” In the present disclosure, “free running” is the time before the host vehicle slams on the brakes that it is using to analyze the behavior of the preceding vehicle. This can reasonably be thought of as computer processing time, which Foster teaches in paragraph 1117 regarding “the autonomous system’s reaction time”.
Present claim 1 can reasonably be interpreted to teach determining when the vehicle is in a “safety area,” which can reasonably be considered as an area in which hard braking is not required because there is a comfortable gap between the host vehicle and forward vehicle. Determining such a safety area is inherent in determining whether or not a vehicle can softly brake or must sharply brake. Foster paragraph 1137 teaches that the host vehicle can determine that it can “minimize….deceleration” when safe to do so. Thus, as shown in Foster Fig. 6 and discussed in paragraphs 1137-38 and 1145, the vehicle leaves an “efficiency buffer” to limit deceleration when it is not in a “safety critical or evasive scenario”.
Present claim 1 also teaches determining if the vehicle is in a “collision avoid area” which means that, even when a safety margin or buffer is built in to account for various reaction and processing times, the host vehicle still needs to brake hard to avoid a collision. Finally, claim 1 teaches determining if the vehicle is in a “collision area” which means that braking alone will not avoid the collision and the vehicle will need to swerve.
The examiner views Foster as teaching all of these limitations. This includes the limitation of “a processor configured todetermine a braking distance of the preceding vehicle based on a maximum deceleration of the preceding vehicle”. Even though the examiner used Broll in the last rejection, the examiner specifically noted that “Foster does perform the calculating in this claim”.
In some ways, claim 1 can be taught of as a combination of 1) art that teaches a vehicle that can brake softly or sharply depending on the need, which inherently means that the vehicle determines whether there a safety area exists; and 2) art that teaches: braking hard and if that won’t work, swerve. The examiner considers both these teachings as existing in the prior art. Foster teaches braking hard or soft depending on the need. The examiner also considers that it could likely be reasonable to combine these. When a vehicle needs to brake hard it needs to do so to avoid a collision. Furthermore, if that won’t work, the vehicle may swerve to avoid the collision. See the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action for a discussion of the related prior art.
Please see the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recites “a collision avoid area”. As explained in the “Response to Arguments” section of this detailed action, the term is new matter. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “a collision risk area”.
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, 4-6, 11, and 14-16 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, the device comprising (see Fig. 1, item 150):
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 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, based on the safe stopping distance and a stopping distance of the vehicle (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), an area in which the vehicle is located among
a safety area (see Foster paragraph 1137 teaches that the host vehicle can determine that it can “minimize….deceleration” when safe to do so. Thus, as shown in Foster Fig. 6 and discussed in paragraphs 1137-38 and 1145, the vehicle leaves an “efficiency buffer” to limit deceleration when it is not in a “safety critical or evasive scenario” which is when it needs to slam on the brakes or swerve. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there are 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.),
a collision avoid area (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.” As taught in paragraphs 1135, the host vehicle can maintain a “predetermined critical minimum following distance” to any proceeding vehicle in order “to prevent collision”.), and
a collision area(see Foster paragraph 0357 which 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”. See paragraphs 1144-1145 for safety critical situations and evasive scenarios.)
control the control module based on the area (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117, 1135-38 and 1145.),
wherein the safe stopping distance is determined based on a free running distance of the vehicle and a braking distance (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117 regarding “the autonomous system’s reaction time”. In paragraph 1117 the “the minimum gap…[includes] the autonomous system’s reaction time, the brake system’s reaction time” which is a free running time.).
Regarding claim 4, Foster discloses the device of claim 1.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein,
the processor is further configured to calculate the safe stopping distance based on an inter-vehicle distance with the preceding vehicle and the braking distance of the preceding vehicle (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117).
Regarding claim 5, Foster discloses the device of claim 1.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a safe stopping margin distance [S] by calculating a difference between the braking distance of the preceding vehicle [Df] and a preset collision-avoiding safety distance [X]; and calculate the safe stopping distance [CS] [of the vehicle] by calculating a sum of the inter-vehicle distance [C] and the safe stopping margin distance [S] (note that when all the adding and subtracting of these terms is done, one gets back to the basic math that determines a minimum following distance and then adds a margin of safety. With that in mind, see Foster Fig. 6 for a minimum gap with a minimum following distance added to it. See also paragraph 0527 for determining the critical distance that must be maintained between the vehicles and adding “an additional safety buffer”.).
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses the device of claim 5.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim 5, 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 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 safe stopping distance of the vehicle see paragraph 1117 for determining the host vehicle’s “maximum available deceleration”. );
determining, based on the safe stopping distance and a stopping distance of the vehicle (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), an area which the vehicle is located among
a safety area (see Foster paragraph 1137 teaches that the host vehicle can determine that it can “minimize….deceleration” when safe to do so. Thus, as shown in Foster Fig. 6 and discussed in paragraphs 1137-38 and 1145, the vehicle leaves an “efficiency buffer” to limit deceleration when it is not in a “safety critical or evasive scenario” which is when it needs to slam on the brakes or swerve. Paragraph 1139 teaches that when there are “no safety critical events,” which obviously relates to when there are 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.),
a collision avoid area (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.” As taught in paragraphs 1135, the host vehicle can maintain a “predetermined critical minimum following distance” to any proceeding vehicle in order “to prevent collision”.), and
a collision area(see Foster paragraph 0357 which 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”. See paragraphs 1144-1145 for safety critical situations and evasive scenarios.)
controlling a control module, configured to control driving and steering of the vehicle, based on the area see Fig. 6 and paragraph 1117, 1135-38 and 1145. The host vehicle can stop or carry out an evasive maneuver.).
Regarding claims 14-16, they are, respectively, substantially similar to claims 4-6. 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 discloses the device of claim 6.
Foster further discloses:
The device of claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to
output an alarm using an alarm device based on the vehicle being located in a collision risk area,
wherein the collision risk area is an area in which of the vehicle is equal to or greater than the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and is smaller than a sum of the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and the collision-avoiding safety distance (see 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 collision risk area.
However, Broll teaches:
output an alarm using an alarm device based on the vehicle being located in a 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 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 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 7.
Foster further teaches:
The device of claim 7, wherein
the processor is further configured tobased 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 sum of the safe stopping distance of the vehicle and the collision- avoiding safety distance (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 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.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Zhu (US20180326956) teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph 0045 for a system that determines how hard the host vehicle needs to brake “or make a full stop” for an object that is “in front of” the host vehicle. The stopping rate is based on the inter-vehicle distance between itself and a forward vehicle. See Fig. 7 for a system that determines if the vehicle is able to decelerate at less than a first threshold (NO out of 702). If so, the vehicle will do that and no warning will be given to the occupant. See paragraph 0046 for the vehicle engaging a “soft deceleration” or “a hard deceleration,” also called an “emergency deceleration or stop”. The deceleration rate can be “based on the distance and speed of the following vehicle”.
Moshchuk et al. (US2012/0101713). See Fig. 3 which includes line 28 which is the last chance to avoid a collision with hard braking, as discussed in paragraph 0022. See Fig. 4, step 54 for braking when the TTC is less than a threshold Th2. See S56 and paragraph 0025, which teaches: Is TTC < Th3? If so, automatic steering may be provided, but it depends if the lane is open. That is checked in decision diamond in step 64 of Fig. 4.
Katoh (US2017/0057498). Katoh teaches in paragraph 0078 that “automatic steering intervenes only in a case where the host vehicle is highly likely to collide with the obstacle despite the intervention of the automatic braking”. So in Fig. 4, the system detects an obstacle and an “avoidance space” in front of the host vehicle in S1s and S12 (see Fig. 3). Then the system determines whether or not there will be a collision in S13.
Hashimoto (US2022/0289174) teaches a system that brakes a vehicle and then if that is not enough, (NO out of S108) the system will check if a lane change is safe (S110), and if so, the system will swerve (S111). If swerving with regular steering is not enough (NO out of S111) then the system will add differential braking to the wheels to swerve in an especially strong manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
922
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fritz (US2013/0338878 A1) teaches a system in which a vehicle will swerve at the last second if necessary.
Morotomi (US2018/0257644) teaches brake then swerve if necessary.
Hoshikawa (U.S. 10,829,128) teaches determining a shortest TTC among a plurality. Repeatedly recalculates TTC. See Hoshikawa, Fig. 6, for determining various TTCs, and then in step 695, re-running the control loop to recalculate the TTCs. In some cases, the TTC is greater than a particular threshold the brakes will not be applied (see step 626 and 628). In other cases, the TTC is small enough that some form of braking must take place (see steps 632 and 636).
PNG
media_image3.png
642
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yuasa (US2013/0173132) teaches determining when collision avoidance with swerving will be possible.
Kuno et al. (US2021/0370924) teaches a system in which a brake a different deceleration rates and at different starting times. See paragraph 0004 for a system in which “When the degree of overlap between the driver’s vehicle and a target present in the driver’s vehicle passing region is relatively low, the driving assistance apparatus first executes the low-G braking control….When there is a strong possibility that collision with the target cannot be avoided even if the low-G braking control is continued, the driving assistance apparatus executes the high-G braking control.”
PNG
media_image4.png
742
1034
media_image4.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, i