8DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply filed 21 October 2025, which was in reply to the non-final action, dated 21 July 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-16 (pgs. 3-36, Action), applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 16 to recite “calculating a collision index indicating a possibility of collision with the collision candidate vehicle ... and comparing the collision index with a reference value”. This recitation necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1 and 14-16 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman; claims 2 and 3 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Mase; claim 4 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Stählin; claims 5 and 6 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman , Stählin and He; claims 7 and 8 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and He; claims 9-13 in view of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao, as discussed below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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 non-obviousness.
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 1, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0314978 to Yasui in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0031190 to Choi et al. (hereafter Choi), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0162393 to Lee et al. (hereafter Lee) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0309219 to Newman et al. (hereafter Newman).
As per claim 1, Yasui discloses [a] secondary collision avoidance control method of an autonomous vehicle (see at least Yasui, Abstract; [0080] disclosing that when it is determined that avoidance of the secondary collision is necessary (YES in S511), the processing proceeds to S512. In S512, the ECU 20 calculates a new trajectory 612a so as to avoid the secondary collision and merge with the trajectory 612. At this time, it is preferable to calculate a trajectory that merges with the trajectory 612 with as smooth steering as possible. In S513, the ECU 20 performs steering correction based on the trajectory recalculated in S512), the secondary collision avoidance control method comprising:
selecting, by an autonomous driving controller, a collision candidate vehicle configured to be collidable with the autonomous vehicle from among other vehicles ... (1) ... based on a plurality of sensor signals from an autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Yasui, [0028] disclosing that The ECU 21 is an environment recognition unit that recognizes the traveling environment of the vehicle V based on detection results of detection units 31A, 31B, 32A, and 32B that detect the surrounding conditions of the vehicle V. In the case of the present embodiment, the detection units 31A and 31B are cameras that capture images of a view in front of the vehicle V (may hereinafter be referred to as cameras 31A and 31B) and are attached to the vehicle interior side of the windshield at the front of the roof of the vehicle V. By analyzing an image captured by the camera 31A, it is possible to extract the contour of a target object or extract a lane division line (such as a white line) on the road; [0029]; [0042] disclosing that the ECU 21 detects an object on the road, measures the distance between the vehicle V and the detected object, and provides these pieces of information to the ECU 20. In the present embodiment, examples of the object include another vehicle, a person, and some kind of flying object such as a signboard. In S202, the ECU 20 predicts the movement of the detected object based on the information provided from the ECU 21. In S203, the ECU 20 predicts the trajectory of the vehicle V based on the current angle of the steering wheel of the vehicle V acquired from the ECU 22, the current speed of the vehicle V acquired from the ECU 27, and the like. In S204, the ECU 20 determines whether the vehicle V will collide with (or contact) the object based on the movement of the object predicted in S202 and the trajectory of the vehicle V predicted in S203) ... (2) ... ;
estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals detected from the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Yasui, [0028]; [0029]; [0042]; [0043] disclosing that In S206, the ECU 20 calculates a collision avoidance operation by the collision mitigation brake system (CMBS). The calculation of the collision avoidance operation includes calculation of brake control for collision avoidance and calculation of a trajectory on which the vehicle V should travel), ... (3) ... ;
estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, secondary collision occurrence probabilities of the autonomous vehicle with the other vehicles, upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches an adjacent lane based on the estimated moving path (see at least Yasui, [0042]; [0044] disclosing that FIG. 6A illustrates an example calculation result of the CMBS-based collision avoidance operation. A trajectory 610 indicates an example of the trajectory set by the calculation of the CMBS-based collision avoidance operation. As described above, the ECU 20 determines whether collision will occur between the vehicle V and an object 600 based on a detected position and predicted movement 601 of the object 600, the speed of the vehicle V, and the trajectory of the vehicle V predicted in S203. If it is determined that collision will occur between the vehicle V and the object 600, the CMBS-based collision avoidance operation is calculated. For example, braking control of applying a braking force of 0.6 to 1.0 G to stop the vehicle Vis performed, and a trajectory 610 along a lane L1 on which the vehicle V is traveling is set as the trajectory on which the vehicle V travels during the collision avoidance operation. ; [0045] discussing Fig. 6B; [0046] discussing Fig. 6C; [0050] disclosing that if the calculated probability of the avoidance of collision exceeds a predetermined value, the ECU 20 determines that collision can be avoided. Note that the probability of the occurrence of collision may be used as described above with regard to S210. Note that the determination here as to whether collision can be avoided may include determination of the absence of other hazards that may occur due to deviation from the lane, such as the absence of another object (e.g., an oncoming vehicle) in the lane that the vehicle enters; [0080]-[0082]); ... (4), and ... (5) ... , and
controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Yasui, [0080] disclosing that in order to reduce or prevent the occurrence of such secondary collision due to a sudden movement of the steering wheel, the processing shown in the flowchart of FIG. 5B may be performed in the steering correction control in S506. S511 to S513 are steps that replace S506. First, in S511, the ECU 20 determines whether it is necessary to avoid secondary collision. For example, the ECU 20 predicts the trajectory 1001 based on the speed of the vehicle V, the operation amount of the steering wheel, and the CMBS-based braking control; [0081]; [0082]) ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... . But, Yasui does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Newman:
(1) selecting ... a collision candidate vehicle ... by calculating a collision index indicating a possibility of collision with the collision candidate vehicle (see at least Newman, claim 1, disclosing a surrounding information detector for detecting at least one of a position and a speed of an object around the vehicle ... a controller configured to determine a probability of a forward collision with the first vehicle <interpreted as a collision index indicating a possibility of collision > and a probability of a rear-end collision with the second vehicle based on outputted information of the surrounding information detector and the vehicle information sensor, determine a target forward collision speed and a target rear-end collision speed to minimize a sum of injuries to an occupant of the vehicle by the forward collision and injuries to the occupant by the rear-end collision, based on a calculated overall harm value <interpreted as the reference value>, upon; [0029]; [0133]; [0182]) ... ,
(2) and comparing the collision index with a reference value (see at least Newman, claims 1, [0029]; [0133]; [0182]) ... .
But, Yasui, as modified by Newman does not explicitly teach the following limitation that is taught in Lee:
(3) estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals ... upon determining that the collision candidate vehicle approaches and collision of the autonomous vehicle with the collision candidate vehicle occurs (see at least Lee, Abstract; [0262] disclosing that in order to control operation of the vehicle 100 after the collision, the processor 717 may generate a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving based on the collision information ; [0269]) ... . But, Yasui, as modified Newman and Lee, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Choi:
(4) confirming, by the autonomous driving controller, positions of additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle and configured to be collidable with the autonomous vehicle among the other vehicles traveling in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle (see at least Choi, [0028] disclosing that a detection module 70 mounted on the vehicle may include a right sensor 71 detecting an object on the right side of the vehicle, a left sensor 72 detecting an object on the left side of the vehicle, a front sensor 73 detecting an object on the front side of the vehicle, and a rear sensor 74 detecting an object on the rear side of the vehicle. The right sensor 71 and the rear sensor 74 may be formed as a single unit, a right-rear sensor, and the left sensor 72 and the rear sensor 74 may be formed as a single unit, a left-rear sensor. In this case, the right-rear sensor is configured to detect objects on the right rear sides of the host vehicle, and the left-rear sensor is configured to detect objects on the left and rear sides of the host vehicle ; [0033]; [0083]);
(5) calculating safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles based on the sensor signals from the autonomous sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0056] if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area>); and
(6) controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area (see at least Choi, [0056] disclosing that if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area>); and
(7) when the safety area is formed by securing the safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle (see at least Choi, [0056] ).
Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman are analogues art to claim 1 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, to provide the benefit of (1) selecting a collision candidate vehicle by calculating a collision index indicating a possibility of collision with the collision candidate vehicle, (2) comparing the collision index with a reference value, as disclosed in Newman, (3) estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals upon determining that the collision candidate vehicle approaches and collision of the autonomous vehicle with the collision candidate vehicle occurs, as disclosed in Lee, and to (4) confirm positions of additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind, (5) calculating safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles based on the sensor signals, (6) control steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area, and (7) have the safety area is formed by securing the safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed in Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by predicting collision with vehicles the operator of the vehicle cannot see (see at least Choi, [0006]).
As per claim 14, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Yasui further disclose the following limitation:
a vehicle comprising the autonomous driving controller for carrying out the secondary collision avoidance (see at least Choi, Fig. 1, showing a vehicle and a control device; [0011]).
As per claim 15, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Lee discloses the following:
an autonomous vehicle (see at least Lee, [0030] disclosing that the vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle) ... .
Yasui further disclose the following limitation:
the autonomous driving controller for carrying out the secondary collision avoidance (see at least Choi, Fig. 1, showing a vehicle and a control device; [0011]).
As per claim 16, similar to claim 1, Yasui discloses [a] non-transitory computer readable medium containing program instructions executed by a processor, the computer readable medium comprising: program instructions (see at least Yasui, [0009]) that
selects a collision candidate vehicle configured to be collidable with the autonomous vehicle from among other vehicles ... (1) ... based on a plurality of sensor signals from an autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Yasui, [0028]; [0029] ; [0042]) ... (2) ... ;
program instructions that estimate a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals detected from the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Yasui, [0028]; [0029]; [0042]; [0043]), ... (3) ... ;
program instructions estimate secondary collision occurrence probabilities of the autonomous vehicle with the other vehicles, upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches an adjacent lane based on the estimated moving path (see at least Yasui, [0042]; [0044]; [0045]; [0046]; [0050]; [0080]-[0082]); ... (4) ... , and ... (5) ... , and
program instructions that control steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle (see at least Yasui, [0080] disclosing that in order to reduce or prevent the occurrence of such secondary collision due to a sudden movement of the steering wheel, the processing shown in the flowchart of FIG. 5B may be performed in the steering correction control in S506. S511 to S513 are steps that replace S506. First, in S511, the ECU 20 determines whether it is necessary to avoid secondary collision. For example, the ECU 20 predicts the trajectory 1001 based on the speed of the vehicle V, the operation amount of the steering wheel, and the CMBS-based braking control; [0081]; [0082]) ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... . But, Yasui does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Newman:
(1) select ... a collision candidate vehicle ... by calculating a collision index indicating a possibility of collision with the collision candidate vehicle (see at least Newman, claim 1,; [0029]; [0133]; [0182]) ... ,
(2) and comparing the collision index with a reference value (see at least Newman, claims 1, [0029]; [0133]; [0182]) ... . But, Yasui, as modified by Newman, does not explicitly teach the following limitation that is taught in Lee:
(3) estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals ... upon determining that the collision candidate vehicle approaches and collision of the autonomous vehicle with the collision candidate vehicle occurs (see at least Lee, Abstract; [0262] disclosing that in order to control operation of the vehicle 100 after the collision, the processor 717 may generate a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving based on the collision information ; [0269]) ... .
But, Yasui as modified by Newman and Lee does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Choi:
(4) program instructions that confirm positions of additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle and configured to be collidable with the autonomous vehicle among the other vehicles traveling in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle (see at least Choi, [0028] disclosing that a detection module 70 mounted on the vehicle may include a right sensor 71 detecting an object on the right side of the vehicle, a left sensor 72 detecting an object on the left side of the vehicle, a front sensor 73 detecting an object on the front side of the vehicle, and a rear sensor 74 detecting an object on the rear side of the vehicle. The right sensor 71 and the rear sensor 74 may be formed as a single unit, a right-rear sensor, and the left sensor 72 and the rear sensor 74 may be formed as a single unit, a left-rear sensor. In this case, the right-rear sensor is configured to detect objects on the right rear sides of the host vehicle, and the left-rear sensor is configured to detect objects on the left and rear sides of the host vehicle ; [0033]; [0083]);
(5) calculating safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles based on the sensor signals from the autonomous sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0056] if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area>); and
(6) controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area (see at least Choi, [0056] disclosing that if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area>); and
(7) when the safety area is formed by securing the safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle (see at least Choi, [0056]).
Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman are analogues art to claim 16 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, to provide the benefit of (1) selecting a collision candidate vehicle by calculating a collision index indicating a possibility of collision with the collision candidate vehicle, (2) comparing the collision index with a reference value, as disclosed in Newman, (3) estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, a moving path of the autonomous vehicle using the sensor signals upon determining that the collision candidate vehicle approaches and collision of the autonomous vehicle with the collision candidate vehicle occurs, as disclosed in Lee, and to (4) confirm positions of additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind, (5) calculating safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles based on the sensor signals, (6) control steering, driving torque, and braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to a virtual safety area, and (7) have the safety area is formed by securing the safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles traveling in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed in Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by predicting collision with vehicles the operator of the vehicle cannot see (see at least Choi, [0006]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0221364 to Mase et al. (Mase).
As per claim 2, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, the moving path of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous driving controller compares measurement values of the sensor signals with set limit values (see at least Choi, [0028]; [0041] disclosing that a forward collision prediction module 21 of the collision prediction module 20 may calculate a collision estimation time taken to collide with the preceding vehicle based on the relative speed of the preceding vehicle 105 calculated by the vehicle information acquisition module 10 and the distance between the host vehicle 100 and the preceding vehicle 105; [0042] disclosing that a rearward collision prediction module 23 of the collision prediction module 20 may calculate a collision estimation time taken to collide with the following vehicle using the relative speed of the following vehicle 110 calculated by the vehicle information acquisition module 10 and the distance between the host vehicle 100 and the following vehicle 110. That is, the rearward collision prediction module 23 may calculate an estimation time at which the following vehicle 110 reaches the host vehicle 100, based on the relative speed and distance, and as illustrated in FIG. 2, if the estimation time is lower than or equals to a preset time x, the rearward collision prediction module 23 may determine that a potential collision with the following vehicle 110 is predicted. If the potential collision with the following vehicle 110 is predicted, the rearward collision prediction module 23 may output the related information to the controller 60; [0056] disclosing that if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as comparing measurement values of the sensor signals with set limit values >). But, neither Yasui, Lee, Choi nor Newman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Mase:
estimates the moving path of the autonomous vehicle through the sensor signals comprising a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate detected by the autonomous driving sensor unit, upon determining that the collision of the autonomous vehicle with the candidate vehicle occurs (see at least Mase, [0049] disclosing that the vehicle states sensor 20 is configured to detect vehicle states (running states) of the host vehicle, and includes, for example, a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect/measure a vehicle speed of the host vehicle, an acceleration sensor configured to detect an acceleration of a vehicle body of the host vehicle in a front-rear direction and an acceleration of the vehicle body of the host vehicle in a lateral (left-right) direction, and a yaw rate sensor configured to detect a yaw rate of the host vehicle. Information (signals) detected/obtained by the vehicle states sensor 20 is transmitted to each of the ECUs through the CAN 80).
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Mase are analogues art to claim 2 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). Mase relates to a driving assist apparatus which executes a secondary collision damage mitigation control when the driving assist apparatus detects a light collision of an own vehicle (see at least Mase, Abstract; [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui and modified by Lee, Choi and Newman, to provide the benefit of estimating the moving path of the autonomous vehicle through the sensor signals comprising a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, and a yaw rate detected by the autonomous driving sensor unit, upon determining that the collision of the autonomous vehicle with the candidate vehicle occurs, as disclosed in Mase, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by in improving safety by mitigating additional damage especially in those situations where the driving was drowsy (see at least Mase, [0021]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Mase discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, the moving path of the autonomous vehicle, the autonomous driving controller compares measurement values of the sensor signals with set limit values (see at least Choi, [0028]; [0041]; [0042]; [0058]). Mase further discloses the following limitation:
the autonomous driving controller estimates relative positions of the autonomous vehicle to the other vehicles after occurrence of primary collision through sensor signals detected by a camera, an around view monitor, and a distance sensor other than an acceleration sensor and a yaw rate sensor configured to detect the longitudinal acceleration, the lateral acceleration, and the yaw rate, upon determining that the measurement values of the sensor signals exceed the limit values (see at least Mase, [0049]; [0057] disclosing that the forward direction monitoring camera (camera device) 90 is connected to the lane departure suppression control section 11. The forward direction monitoring camera 90 takes a picture of a scene in front of the host vehicle to obtain image data. The forward direction monitoring camera 90 analyzes the image data so as to recognize (extract information on) a left white line LL and a right white line LR shown in FIG. 2. The forward direction monitoring camera 90 calculates (obtains) a curve radius R of a center line LC that is at a center position between the left white line LL and the right white line LR, and calculates (obtains) a deviation angle θy formed between a direction of the center line LC and a direction of the host vehicle C. Hereinafter, the deviation angle θy is referred to as the “yaw angle θy”. Furthermore, the forward direction monitoring camera 90 calculates (obtains) a right distance DsR between the front right wheel of the host vehicle C and the right white line LR in a road width direction, and a left distance DsL between the front left wheel of the host vehicle C and the left white line LL in the road width direction. E. And further disclosing that one of the side distances Ds, that is on the side of the direction in which the host vehicle C is likely to deviate from the traveling lane (i.e., that is on the side of the direction indicated by the yaw angle θy) is used for calculating the control amount for the LDA control <interpreted as comparing measurement values of the sensor signals with set limit values>).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0294177 to Stählin et al (hereafter Stählin).
As per claim 4, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Yasui, Lee, Choi nor Newman explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Stahlin:
wherein, in estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, the secondary collision occurrence probabilities of the autonomous vehicle with the other vehicles, the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control from other vehicles traveling in a lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches no adjacent lane based on the estimated moving path (see at least Stahlin, [0064] disclosing that the intelligent infrastructure 150 may detect that a collision or other accident involving the vehicle 100 has occurred based on information and sensor data of sensors 190, 190-1, . . . , 190-N of the intelligent infrastructure 150. In response to detection of the collision or other accident, the control unit 160 may control via the transceiver 180 to transmit to the vehicle 100 a request for the vehicle to provide a V2X emergency message to intelligent infrastructure 150 via transceiver 180, which may relay the V2X emergency message and/or other information to emergency responder services via one or more communication networks; see Fig. 2, steps 230 and 250; [0075] disclosing that with regard to Fig. 2, step 220, the vehicle may determine information and data of one or more of sensors of the vehicle is unreliable or incomplete, due to sensor malfunction, destruction, misalignment; [0076] disclosing that In step 240, in response to transmission of the V2X emergency message, the vehicle may receive sensor data and or other information from the intelligent infrastructure. The sensor data or information received by the vehicle from the intelligent infrastructure may be utilized by the vehicle to perform the driver-assisted vehicle functions, semi-autonomous vehicle functions, or autonomous vehicle functions; [0077] disclosing that in step 250, the vehicle may perform one or more of driver-assisted vehicle functions, semi-autonomous vehicle functions, or autonomous vehicle functions utilizing the sensor data or information received from the intelligent infrastructure).
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Stahlin are analogues art to claim 4 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). Stahlin relates to a vehicle safety control system that performs driver-assisted vehicle functions, semi-autonomous vehicle functions, or autonomous vehicle functions of the vehicle via intelligent infrastructure to supplement or replace sensor data of vehicle sensors damaged as a result of a vehicle collision or accident (see at least Stahlin, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui and modified by Lee, Choi and Newman, to provide the benefit of requesting cooperative control from other vehicles traveling in a lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that the autonomous vehicle breaches no adjacent lane based on the estimated moving path, as disclosed in Stahlin, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by supplementing the detection of objects and conditions of an environment surrounding the vehicle to assist a vehicle driver with, or independently perform, vehicle control (see at least Stahlin, [0007]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Stählin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication Number CN 107274720 to He et al. (hereafter He).
As per claim 5, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Stahlin discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
... (1) ... upon determining that a speed of the autonomous vehicle is increased through the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0035] disclosing that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 detected by the speed sensor 75 <interpreted as determining that the speed is increasing or decreasing> may be provided to a vehicle information acquisition module 10, a collision prediction module 20, a controller 60; [0036] disclosing that the vehicle information acquisition module 10 may calculate a speed of a following vehicle based on the information detected by the right, left and rear sensors 71, 72 and 74, and the speed information of the host vehicle received from the speed sensor 75) ... (2) ... , upon determining that the speed of the autonomous vehicle is decreased through the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0035]; [0036]). But neither, Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman nor Stahlin explicitly teach the following limitations taught by He:
(1) the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling (see at least He, pg. 4, para. 6, disclosing that the automatic driving automobile 2 receives real-time traffic data of the automatic driving vehicle 1 and the car driving data to judge whether a cooperative control requirements, specifically the driving effect of safety, comfort and convenience to the vehicle according to the driving data, to judge whether there is cooperative control requirements. For example, automatic driving automobile automatic driving vehicle 2 running in the automatic driving vehicle 1 behind the same lane, automatic driving automobile 2 according to the received 1 of real-time vehicle data and the vehicle real-time running data discovery if according to real time vehicle speed will continue to drive collision, need for overtaking, that automatic driving vehicle 2 present cooperative control requirements (needs automatic driving cooperation of vehicle 1 so that the automatic driving vehicle 2 overtaking). if the automatic driving vehicle 2 judges that no cooperative control needs, not sending cooperative control request, continuously in the normal control state.) ... , and
(2) requests cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, ... (see at least He, pg. 4, para. 6)
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, Stahlin and He are analogues art to claim 5 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). Stahlin relates to a vehicle safety control system that performs driver-assisted vehicle functions, semi-autonomous vehicle functions, or autonomous vehicle functions of the vehicle via intelligent infrastructure to supplement or replace sensor data of vehicle sensors damaged as a result of a vehicle collision or accident (see at least Stahlin, Abstract). He relates to an automatic driving vehicle and multi-vehicle cooperative control method and system (see at least He, pg. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, as modified by Lee and further modified by Choi, Newman and Stahlin, to provide the benefit of (1) requesting cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that a speed of the autonomous vehicle is increased through the autonomous driving sensor unit, and (2) requesting cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that the speed of the autonomous vehicle is decreased through the autonomous driving sensor unit, as disclosed in He, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the automatic driving vehicle running safety, comfort and convenience, and improving the traffic efficiency (see at least He, pg. 3, para. 13).
As per claim 6, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and Stahlin discloses all of the limitations of claim 4, as shown above. But, neither Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman nor Stahlin explicitly teach the following limitation taught in He:
wherein, in estimating, by the autonomous driving controller, the secondary collision occurrence probabilities of the autonomous vehicle with the other vehicles, the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control from the other vehicles in real time using at least one of Internet Of Things (IOT), Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, a RADAR system, a LIDAR system, ultrasonic waves, a camera, or a navigation system (see at least He, pg. 3, para. 11, disclosing that wherein the real-time traffic data comprises automatic driving vehicle identification code, time, real-time position and real-time speed, direction of travel, the estimated travel path and expected behavior, sending and receiving real-time traffic data, the cooperative control request sending and response information feedback by the V2X technology, working distance of the broadcast is not less than 300 and less than 200 millisecond time delay from the sending end to the receiving end in the working distance).
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, Stahlin and He are analogues art to claim 6 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). Stahlin relates to a vehicle safety control system that performs driver-assisted vehicle functions, semi-autonomous vehicle functions, or autonomous vehicle functions of the vehicle via intelligent infrastructure to supplement or replace sensor data of vehicle sensors damaged as a result of a vehicle collision or accident (see at least Stahlin, Abstract). He relates to an automatic driving vehicle and multi-vehicle cooperative control method and system (see at least He, pg. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, as modified by Lee and further modified by Choi, Newman and Stahlin, to provide the benefit of (1) requesting cooperative control from the other vehicles in real time using at least one of Internet Of Things (IOT), Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, a RADAR system, a LIDAR system, ultrasonic waves, a camera, or a navigation system, as disclosed in He, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the automatic driving vehicle running safety, comfort and convenience, and improving the traffic efficiency (see at least He, pg. 3, para. 13).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He.
As per claim 7, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
... (1) ... upon determining that a speed of the autonomous vehicle is increased through the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0035] disclosing that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 detected by the speed sensor 75 <interpreted as determining that the speed is increasing or decreasing> may be provided to a vehicle information acquisition module 10, a collision prediction module 20, a controller 60; [0036] disclosing that the vehicle information acquisition module 10 may calculate a speed of a following vehicle based on the information detected by the right, left and rear sensors 71, 72 and 74, and the speed information of the host vehicle received from the speed sensor 75) ... (2) ... , upon determining that the speed of the autonomous vehicle is decreased through the autonomous driving sensor unit (see at least Choi, [0035]; [0036]). But neither, Yasui, Lee, Choi nor Newman explicitly teach the following limitations taught by He:
(1) the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling (see at least He, pg. 4, para. 6, disclosing that the automatic driving automobile 2 receives real-time traffic data of the automatic driving vehicle 1 and the car driving data to judge whether a cooperative control requirements, specifically the driving effect of safety, comfort and convenience to the vehicle according to the driving data, to judge whether there is cooperative control requirements. For example, automatic driving automobile automatic driving vehicle 2 running in the automatic driving vehicle 1 behind the same lane, automatic driving automobile 2 according to the received 1 of real-time vehicle data and the vehicle real-time running data discovery if according to real time vehicle speed will continue to drive collision, need for overtaking, that automatic driving vehicle 2 present cooperative control requirements (needs automatic driving cooperation of vehicle 1 so that the automatic driving vehicle 2 overtaking). if the automatic driving vehicle 2 judges that no cooperative control needs, not sending cooperative control request, continuously in the normal control state) ... , and
(2) requests cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, ... (see at least He, pg. 4, para. 6)
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and He are analogues art to claim 7 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). He relates to an automatic driving vehicle and multi-vehicle cooperative control method and system (see at least He, pg. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, as modified by Lee and further modified by Choi and Newman, to provide the benefit of (1) requesting cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that a speed of the autonomous vehicle is increased through the autonomous driving sensor unit, and (2) requesting cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane, in which the autonomous vehicle is currently traveling, upon determining that the speed of the autonomous vehicle is decreased through the autonomous driving sensor unit, as disclosed in He, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the automatic driving vehicle running safety, comfort and convenience, and improving the traffic efficiency (see at least He, pg. 3, para. 13).
As per claim 8, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman and He, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7, as shown above. He further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control from the other vehicles in real time using at least one of Internet Of Things (IOT), Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, a RADAR system, a LIDAR system, ultrasonic waves, a camera, or a navigation system (see at least He, Pg. 3, para. 11, disclosing that wherein the real-time traffic data comprises automatic driving vehicle identification code, time, real-time position and real-time speed, direction of travel, the estimated travel path and expected behavior, sending and receiving real-time traffic data, the cooperative control request sending and response information feedback by the V2X technology, working distance of the broadcast is not less than 300 and less than 200 millisecond time delay from the sending end to the receiving end in the working distance).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0018934 to Tarao et al. (hereafter Tarao).
As per claim 9, the combination of Yasui, Lee, Choi and Newman discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, ... the autonomous driving controller request control of ... deceleration ... before moving the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, upon determining that the safety distances between the autonomous vehicle and the additional collision candidate vehicles are not secured (see at least Choi, [0056] ). But, neither Yasui, Lee, Choi nor Newman explicitly teach the following limitation taught in He:
the autonomous driving controller requests cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle (see He, pg. 4, para. 6, disclosing that automatic driving vehicle 1 receives the cooperative control request (feedback information) sent by the automatic driving vehicle 2, then according to collecting its own driving data. receiving the real-time traffic data of another automatic driving vehicle (other automatic driving automobile comprises automatic driving vehicle 2 also transmits its own real-time running data broadcasting) and real-time traffic condition around, after analyzing and determining whether response cooperative control request enters the cooperative control mode, and the feedback response information (feedback information) to the automatic driving vehicle 2. if automatic driving car 1 that enters the cooperative control mode, then adjusting the self-running state to achieve synergistic control purpose. The received real-time traffic data of other automatic driving vehicle may determine the cooperative control mode, but if the real-time traffic condition is not allowed, the automatic driving vehicle 1 can still reject the response control request). But, neither Yasui, Lee, Choi, nor He explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Tarao:
requests cooperative control of ... a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle (see at least Tarao, [0019] disclosing that the remote driving control section of the leading vehicle executes remote driving based on the control information received from the remote center. In the following vehicles traveling behind the leading vehicle of the vehicle formation, the autonomous driving control section controls acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the given vehicle by communicating with the other vehicles configuring the vehicle formation. Thus, for example, by controlling the speed and travel direction of the leading vehicle of the vehicle formation by remote driving, the speed of the leading vehicle is controlled so as be substantially constant) ... .
Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao are analogues art to claim 9 because they are field of controlling vehicles to avoid a secondary collision. Yasui relates to a vehicle control device that controls steering and braking of the vehicle based upon the determination of predicted movement of an object (see at least Yasui, Abstract). Lee relates to a driving control apparatus that generates a control signal for at least one of steering, partial braking, and partial driving of the vehicle and provides the generated control signal so as to control operation of the vehicle after the collision through at least one of a steering control action, a partial braking control action, and a partial driving control action (see at least Lee, Abstract). Choi relates to a vehicle control apparatus and method for detecting a following vehicle and then avoiding or mitigating a collision with the following vehicle or conceding an overtaking lane to the following vehicle initiating a lane change into the overtaking lane (see at least Choi, [0002]). Newman relates to methods and systems for avoiding collisions involving motor vehicles, and for minimizing the destructiveness of such collisions when they are unavoidable (see Newman, [0002]). He relates to an automatic driving vehicle and multi-vehicle cooperative control method and system (see at least He, pg. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima face obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as disclosed in Yasui, as modified by Lee and further modified by Choi and Newman, to provide the benefit of requesting cooperative control of acceleration from a vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle, and requesting cooperative control of a vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle, as disclosed in He and Tarao, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the automatic driving vehicle running safety, comfort and convenience, and improving the traffic efficiency (see at least He, pg. 3, para. 13).
As per claim 10, Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, the autonomous driving controller selectively changes the safety area (see at least Choi, [0056] disclosing that if a vehicle is present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 outputs a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is decelerated, and thus the host vehicle 100 can maintain a safety distance from the preceding vehicle 105, or when a collision with a following vehicle 110 occurs, can avoid a secondary collision with the preceding vehicle 105 or minimize the impact in the secondary collision <interpreted as selectively changes the safety area>), ... .
Tarao further discloses the following limitation:
... controlling ... upon determining that the cooperative control from the vehicle traveling behind the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle is not enabled (see at least Tarao, [0019] disclosing that disclosing that the remote driving control section of the leading vehicle executes remote driving based on the control information received from the remote center. In the following vehicles traveling behind the leading vehicle of the vehicle formation, the autonomous driving control section controls acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the given vehicle by communicating with the other vehicles configuring the vehicle formation. Thus, for example, by controlling the speed and travel direction of the leading vehicle of the vehicle formation by remote driving, the speed of the leading vehicle is controlled so as be substantially constant. Furthermore, for example, the plural following vehicles traveling behind the leading vehicle are controlled by autonomous driving such that the speed of each given vehicle is substantially constant).
As per claim 11, Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, the autonomous driving controller changes the safety area to move the safety area forwards (see at least Choi, [0056]).
As per claim 12, Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, the autonomous driving controller selectively changes the safety area (see at least Choi, [0056]) ... .
He further discloses the following limitation:
upon determining that the cooperative control of deceleration from the vehicle traveling in front of the autonomous vehicle in the lane breached by the autonomous vehicle is not enabled (see at least He, pg. 4, para. 6).
As per claim 13, Yasui, Lee, Choi, Newman, He and Tarao discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Choi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, in controlling, by the autonomous driving controller, the steering, the driving torque, and the braking torque of the autonomous vehicle so as to move the autonomous vehicle to the safety area, the autonomous driving controller changes the safety area to move the safety area rearwards (see at least Choi, see Fig. 3, [0055] disclosing that the host vehicle 100 is traveling or stopping, received from the speed sensor 75, the controller 60 may determine which of the traveling speed and the brake torque can be adjusted. If the host vehicle 100 is traveling, and an object is not present in front of the host vehicle, the controller 60 may output a control signal to the electronic engine control unit 91 so that the traveling speed of the host vehicle 100 is accelerated, and thus a collision between the host vehicle 100 and a following vehicle 110 can be avoided <interpreted as moving the safety area rearwards>; [0066] disclosing that if a following vehicle 110 is detected from the rear sensor 74 S400, a rear vehicle information acquisition module 10 can calculate a distance between the following vehicle 110 and the host vehicle 100 and a relative speed of the following vehicle 110. Information on the calculated distance and the relative speed is provided to a collision prediction module 20, and the collision prediction module 20 calculates an estimated time until a collision of the following vehicle 110 with the host vehicle 100 occurs and provides the estimated data to a controller 60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0237721 to Shimbo et al. (hereafter Shimbo) Abstract, and Fig. 5 (lateral extending obstacle tracked or not);
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0276013 to Kim, see Abstract, disclosing an apparatus and a method for controlling vehicle collision avoidance. The apparatus includes: a warning signal receiver configured to receive an emergency braking warning signal for a forward collision of a host vehicle; a traveling environment detector configured to detect object information, road information, and space information pertaining to areas in front of, to the side of, and in back of the host vehicle when the warning signal is received; an emergency braking determiner configured to determine whether a risk of a forward collision of the host vehicle is larger than or equal to a first threshold value when the warning signal is received; an avoidance area determiner configured to search for drivable lanes of the host vehicle and one or more candidate areas in the space according to the determined risk of the forward collision, calculate a score of each of the candidate areas, determine an avoidance area, and set an avoidance path for the avoidance area; and a control signal output unit configured to output steering and speed control signals for moving the host vehicle to the avoidance area along the avoidance path;
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0192710 to Eidehall et al. (hereafter Eidehall), see abstract, disclosing a determination instant prior to the estimated time-to-collision, a probability that the host vehicle will collide with the target object dependent at least in part upon whether the lateral distance is within a first interval; and
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0309254 to Murahashi et al. (hereafter Murahashi), see [0121] disclosing that the action plan creating part 200 may be configured to create a sudden braking allowed action plan and a preliminary braking action plan. The sudden braking allowed action plan keeps the set speed set for autonomous driving and permits sudden braking operations in a low collision probability region in the collision probability map 1000, the low collision probability region having collision probabilities lower than a predetermined threshold value lower than a target collision probability. The preliminary braking action plan avoids sudden braking operations by repeating short-time braking in a high collision probability region in the collision probability map 1000, the high collision probability region having a collision probability higher than a predetermined threshold value but lower the target collision probability; [0223]; [0234]; [043]; [0431].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3666