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 Amendments
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 1, 9, 10, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 and Bai et al., U.S. 2018/0005254.
On claim 1, Ucar cites except as underlined:
A method of determining an aggression rating during operation of
a vehicle, comprising:
determining a magnitude and direction of a first acceleration of a vehicle;
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
(The term “acceleration” is a vector quantity. Thus, the vector quantity inherently includes both magnitude and direction).
comparing the magnitude of the first acceleration to a first acceleration threshold that relates to vehicle acceleration in the determined direction;
(3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data)
determining an aggression rating based at least in part on a magnitude of the difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold, where a greater difference results in a higher aggression rating indicating higher driving aggression;
and providing an output to a driver of the vehicle when the aggression
rating exceeds threshold for the aggression rating.
Figure 4B “Notify driver of the ego vehicle 450.”
Regarding the excepted:
”determining an aggression rating based at least in part on a magnitude of the difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold, where a greater difference results in a higher aggression rating indicating higher driving aggression”
Ucar fails to disclose those excepted claim limitations. However Ucar does disclose:
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Ucar’s embodiment such that the claimed invention is realized.
Ucar disclose definitions of abnormal (thus, aggressive) driving:
(1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle);
(3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle
(4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle
In each case, Ucar is describing incidents of aggressive driving wherein the aggressive driver abrogates the average acceleration displayed by other vehicles. While Ucar doesn’t explicitly disclose the detected accelerations in terms of differences of magnitude, the claim doesn’t exclude the amount of determined excessively executed accelerated driving. Thus, the claimed embodiment ”determining an aggression rating based at least in part on a magnitude of the difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold” doesn’t exclude an aggression rating based on the number of times the monitored vehicle repeats the excessive acceleration. A careful reading of the claim limitations would at least suggest Ucar discloses the claimed limitations. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would determine that an increase in the number of times the aggressive driver performs the abnormal acceleration would also qualify as “determining an aggression rating based at least in part on a magnitude of the difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold.”
Regarding the excepted:
and providing an output to a driver of the vehicle when the aggression
rating exceeds threshold for the aggression rating.
Ucar discloses:
Figure 4B “Notify driver of the ego vehicle 450.”
Ucar doesn’t disclose a notification to the driver of the remote vehicle.
In the same art of driver monitoring systems,Bai discloses;
[0049] In some embodiments, the host vehicle 102 may exchange information between one or more remote vehicles 410. For example, the host vehicle 102 V2V transceiver 406 and remote vehicle 410 V2V transceiver 408 may be configured to exchange vehicle information that can include, but is not limited to, the type of user or vehicle, navigation data, road hazard data, collision warning data, course heading data, course history data, projected course data, kinematic data, current position data, range or distance data, speed and acceleration data, location data, vehicle sensory data, vehicle subsystem data, and/or any other vehicle information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include into Ucar the feature of disclosing to the warning a driver a notification that he is exceeding periods of acceleration as disclosed in Bai such that the claimed invention is realized. While Ucar discloses warning of what the other drivers are observing in the remote vehicle, Bai further includes a known feature of taking that observation and transmitting that data to another vehicle via a vehicle to vehicle (or V2V) system.
One of ordinary skill would have also included into Ucar the added feature of warning the vehicle’s driver, as disclosed in Bai, that he is driving abnormally and likely violating the law.
On claim 9, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 wherein the aggression rating includes a baseline aggression level that is determined as a function of an acceleration level that is less than the first acceleration threshold.
Ucar cites:
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle
Ucar doesn’t cite the excepted claim limitations.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ucar an embodiment derived from Ucar an implementation meeting the claimed invention. The cited “ the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle” means any periods of acceleration that doesn’t exceed the average acceleration of other vehicles a baseline aggression that is less that a first acceleration threshold wherein the aggression level is less than one that indicates the driver is driving aggressively. This means there is a “built-in threshold” defining what is aggressive driving, which meets the claimed “baseline aggression level” of zero since driving not meeting the standard
On claim 10, Ucar cites:
The method of claim 1 which also includes determining a vehicle speed, comparing the vehicle speed to a speed threshold and providing an output to the driver of the vehicle that includes information relating to a differential between the vehicle speed and the speed threshold.
[0081] A high speed includes a speed or velocity of a particular vehicle that satisfies a threshold for high speed. The threshold for the high speed is described by the threshold data 196. For example, a speed that is 10 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit satisfies a threshold for a high speed.
And
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data).
And
[0008] Some existing solutions do not take control of the vehicle which is being driven abnormally, and instead provide a notification of the abnormal driving to the driver of the vehicle which may or may not be accompanied by a suggestion for how to correct the problem.
On claim 12, Ucar cites:
The method of claim 1 which also includes determining a following distance of the vehicle, and wherein the aggression rating is based in part on the determined following distance.
Ucar cites:
[0078] In some embodiments, the V2X data 133 includes analysis data 181 generated by the detection system of the remote vehicle that indicates a characteristic of one or more other remote vehicles. This analysis data 181 is useful for providing feedback to the detection system of an ego vehicle so that false positive detections of abnormal driving is reduced. For example, assume that a particular remote vehicle is operated by a cautious or conservative driver that has a pattern of (1) maintaining a large distance to collision between their vehicle and a preceding vehicle that is traveling in front of their vehicle and (2) not being an aggressive driver.
Thus, logic asserts the opposite of a conservative driver would be an aggressive driver who doesn’t maintain a large distance to collision between their vehicle and a preceding vehicle.
On claim 20, Ucar cites:
The method of claim 1 wherein
the first acceleration is associated with an increasing speed of the vehicle,
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
and wherein a second acceleration is monitored and a third acceleration is monitored,
the second acceleration is associated with a decreasing speed of the vehicle
[0022] In some embodiments, an abnormal driving behavior is a driving behavior that satisfies a threshold of risk for a collision or some other undesirable roadway event (e.g., hard braking, rubbernecking, any other undesirable roadway event or behavior, etc.).
and
the third acceleration is associated with turning of the vehicle,
[0280] The LKA system may provide a notification to a driver of the ego vehicle 123 that this event has occurred (e.g., an audible noise or graphical display) or take action to prevent the ego vehicle 123 from actually passing the center yellow line such as making the steering wheel difficult to turn in a direction that would move the ego vehicle over the center yellow line or actually moving the steering wheel so that the ego vehicle 123 is further away from the center yellow line but still safely positioned in its lane of travel.
and
wherein the aggression rating is determined as a function of one or more of a difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold,
[0025] (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data)
a difference between the second acceleration and a second acceleration threshold, and a difference between the third acceleration and a third acceleration threshold.
On claim 21, Ucar cites:
The method of claim 20 wherein the output is provided when the first acceleration exceeds the first acceleration threshold, or when the second acceleration exceeds the second acceleration threshold, or when the third acceleration exceeds the third acceleration threshold.
[0008] Some existing solutions do not take control of the vehicle which is being driven abnormally, and instead provide a notification of the abnormal driving to the driver of the vehicle which may or may not be accompanied by a suggestion for how to correct the problem.
Claims 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Moehr, U.S. 2023/0230502.
On claim 15, Ucar cites except as underlined:
A method of determining an aggression rating during operation of
a vehicle, comprising:
monitoring, during a trip of a vehicle,
the vehicle speed,
(4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data).
vehicle acceleration due to increasing speed of the vehicle,
(3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data)
vehicle acceleration due to decreasing speed of the vehicle,
[0022] In some embodiments, an abnormal driving behavior is a driving behavior that satisfies a threshold of risk for a collision or some other undesirable roadway event (e.g., hard braking, rubbernecking, any other undesirable roadway event or behavior, etc.).
and
vehicle acceleration during turning of the vehicle a first acceleration of a vehicle during a vehicle trip;
[0280] The LKA system may provide a notification to a driver of the ego vehicle 123 that this event has occurred (e.g., an audible noise or graphical display) or take action to prevent the ego vehicle 123 from actually passing the center yellow line such as making the steering wheel difficult to turn in a direction that would move the ego vehicle over the center yellow line or actually moving the steering wheel so that the ego vehicle 123 is further away from the center yellow line but still safely positioned in its lane of travel.
determining a current aggression rating ratings periodically or continuously during the vehicle trip, where the aggression ratings are based at least in part on a magnitude of the first acceleration compared to a baseline aggression rating a difference between one or a combination of more than one of:
a) the vehicle speed and a speed threshold,
[0025] (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle
b) a difference between the vehicle acceleration due to increasing speed of the vehicle and a first acceleration threshold,
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration.
c) a difference between the vehicle acceleration due to decreasing speed of the vehicle and a second acceleration threshold, and d) a difference between the vehicle acceleration during turning of the vehicle and a third acceleration threshold; and providing an output to a driver of the vehicle when the aggression rating exceeds a threshold aggression rating and wherein the output includes including information relating to the current aggression rating; and
determining that the vehicle trip has ended and providing a report wherein the report includes information relating to the aggression ratings determined over time during the vehicle trip.
Ucar discloses:
Figure 4B “Notify driver of the ego vehicle 450.”
[0087] The detection system of the ego vehicle parses the remote sensor data 193 and the time data 154
and
[0179] Vehicles perceive their surrounding environment by having their onboard sensors record sensor measurements and then analyzing the sensor data to identify one or more of the following: which objects are in their environment; where these objects are located in their environment; and various measurements about these objects (e.g., speed, heading, path history, etc.). This invention is about helping vehicles to have the best possible environmental perception abilities.
Ucar doesn’t disclose: determining that the vehicle trip has ended and providing a report wherein the report includes information relating to the aggression ratings determined over time during the vehicle trip.
In the same art of driver monitoring, Moehr cites:
[0020] In some examples, using the one or more trained machine learning models to identify the riskiest operator includes using the one or more trained machine learning models to identify one or more predicted negative vehicle operation outcomes associated with the riskiest operator. In some examples, in response to input of the vehicle operation data and the incident data, the one or more trained ML models can output predicted negative vehicle operation outcome(s) (e.g., predicted incidents of speeding, vehicle accidents, and the like) for different operators and/or vehicles. In some examples, in response to input of the vehicle operation data and the incident data, the one or more trained ML models can output predicted a respective probability of one or more negative vehicle operation outcome(s) for different operators and/or vehicles. In some examples, to identify the riskiest operator as in operation 130, the vehicle management system can select the operator with the highest amount of, and/or severity of, predicted negative vehicle operation outcomes, for instance by sorting the operators by amount and/or severity of predicted negative vehicle operation outcomes. In some examples, to identify the riskiest operator as in operation 130, the vehicle management system can select the operator with the highest probability of, and/or severity of, predicted negative vehicle operation outcomes, for instance by sorting the operators by probability and/or severity of predicted negative vehicle operation outcomes.
[0021] In some examples, the vehicle management system and/or the one or more trained ML models can control for covariates. For instance, in some examples, identification of one or more predicted negative outcomes based on vehicle operation data while taking into account potential differences in context and thoroughfare attributes, wherein the thoroughfare attributes include road type classifications, In some examples, the context attributes include posted speed limits, average traffic flow speed, and time of day. In some examples, this can allow the vehicle management system and/or the one or more trained ML models to accurately compare two operators, even if those two drivers are on
[0023] The process 100 also includes operation 140, at which the vehicle management system outputs and/or provides an alert that indicates and/or identifies the riskiest operator. After the riskiest operator is identified in operation 130, the alert of operation 140 can identify the riskiest operator, for instance such that the riskiest operation can be assigned to a training or coaching session. In some examples, outputting and/or providing the alert includes sending (transmitting) (e.g., over a network) the alert (e.g., as an email, text message, or another message) to a recipient device associated with a supervisor, the operator (e.g., the riskiest operator), a fleet manager, an administrator, law enforcement, an insurance entity, or a combination thereof. In some examples, outputting and/or providing the alert includes displaying the alert on a display, such as the display system 470. In some examples, outputting and/or providing the alert includes playing audio associated with the alert through an audio output device (e.g., loudspeaker(s), headphone(s)). In some examples, outputting the alert includes automatically assigning the riskiest operator to a coaching session, for instance using a calendar application, a schedule application, an appointment application, one or more data structures (e.g., databases) associated therewith, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the above disclosed features of Moehr such that the claimed invention is realized. Ucar discloses a known embodiment for detecting if acceleration levels meet the criteria for aggressive driving while Moehr discloses a known feature for determining a risky driver known for committing driving maneuvers considered to be risky and making a list of these known risks. One of ordinary skill, with the knowledge disclosed in these references, would have produced a list of excessive acceleration events to present to the driver for improvement.
On claim 22, Ucar and Moehr cites:
The method of claim 1 which also includes storing information related to the aggression ratings determined over time during a vehicle trip, determining that the vehicle trip has ended, and providing a report that includes information relating to the aggression ratings determined over time during the vehicle trip. See the rejection of claim 15 which discloses the same subject matter as claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Best et al., U.S. 2025/0115273.
On claim 16, Ucar cites except:
The method of claim 15 which also includes determining a following distance of the vehicle, and wherein the aggression rating is based at least in part on the following distance.
Ucar cites:
[0028] The example of the aggressive driver type of abnormal driving behavior is an example of an “unordered set of criteria” since the abnormal driving behavior is occurring regardless of the order in which the criteria occur. In some embodiments, the set of criteria have to occur in a particular order or predetermined period of time. This is referred to as an “ordered set of criteria.” For example, a type of abnormal driving behavior includes a distracted driver as defined by the occurrence of one or more of the following: (1) (a) a long distance to collision between a remote vehicle and a preceding vehicle (e.g., a vehicle traveling in front of the remote vehicle) (b) followed by a short distance to collision between these two vehicles; and (2) (a) a short distance to collision between a remote vehicle and a preceding vehicle (b) followed by a long distance to collision between these two vehicles. In this example, the two criteria (e.g., the long distance to collision followed by the short distance to collision, or vice versa) must occur in the prescribed order within a predetermined period of time.
Ucar doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations.
In the same art of vehicle monitoring, Best cites:
[0067] At block 406, the system can receive speed data as a driver drives during a trial period. Data can be generated during a driver's first drive or a set amount of time at the beginning of a trip. The system can monitor characteristics such as the vehicle's following distance, the level of aggression for lane changes, or the speed of the vehicle over time at particular intervals. This data may be updated each time the driver operates the vehicle.
And
[0069] At block 410, the system can receive one or more parameters from the machine learning model. As described above, parameters can include, for example, following distance, braking speed, lane change times, lane changed distances, average speed, speed above or below the speed limit, or any other characteristics that impact a vehicle's driving behavior. Parameters may place an emphasis on certain data such as the simulation or survey data in predicting a relative level of aggression. At block 412, the parameters can be applied to the vehicle's driving system. In some embodiments, the parameters can update the vehicle's ACC to implement behavioral changes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the features disclosed in Best such that the claimed invention is realized.
Best discloses a known embodiment for associating distance as it relates to driver aggression and one of ordinary skill would have included this feature in Ucar to provide an improved embodiment including distance as it relates to driver aggression.
Claims 2, 4-6, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Bai et al., U.S. 2018/0005254 and Berntorp, U.S. 2020/0290577.
On claim 2, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 wherein the first acceleration threshold is associated with an increasing vehicle speed and the threshold is set as a function of a magnitude of acceleration
Ucar cites:
[0025] alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
at which a tire of the vehicle will slip.
Ucar, as disclosed above, includes an embodiment wherein measured accelerations are indicated as being associated with an aggressive driver based on previously recorded and determined accelerations corresponding to aggressive driving. In short, while Ucar discloses a feature wherein acceleration is associated with a driver driving aggressive, Ucar doesn’t disclose the aggressive driving and acceleration associated with tire slippage.
In the related art of tire performance measuring, Berntorp cites:
[0058] For a real-time determination of the tire friction function, which is nonlinear for large slip values, data would need to be collected on the entire tire friction function over a short time period, which is challenging because it requires driving at/close to the unstable region of the vehicle dynamics. This operating region is not typically visited during normal vehicle driving, and it may be dangerous to visit this part of the dynamics with either a controller that has not yet acquired a good prediction model for the vehicle behavior, as closed-loop instability may occur. For a human driver of the vehicle, it is possible to driving aggressive enough such that the nonlinear region is excited, however, it takes an experienced driver, since a regular driver typically is not typically used to such excessive steering and/or acceleration.
In other words, Berntorp associates aggressive driving to facilitate a non-linear tire friction function, which is associated with tire slippage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the embodiment discussed in Berntorp such that tire slippage under acceleration includes tire slippage due to accelerations due to aggressive driving. Berntorp adds to another known feature related to aggressive driving in the form of tire slip. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have a known way to measure aggressive driving through tire slip as taught in Berntorp.
On claim 4, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 2 wherein the first acceleration threshold is set at a magnitude of acceleration below that at which a tire of the vehicle will slip.
In the rejection of claim 2, Berntorp disclosed:
For a human driver of the vehicle, it is possible to driving aggressive enough such that the nonlinear region is excited, however, it takes an experienced driver, since a regular driver typically is not typically used to such excessive steering and/or acceleration.
Neither Ucar nor Berntorp disclose the above excepted claim limitations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar and Berntorp, based on the known mechanics of Berntorp, to carry out an embodiment or practice meeting the claimed invention. Clearly, Berntorp, as quoted, suggests that an “experienced driver,” apprised of aggressive driving, would not attempt to drive in a manner to enter into the “nonlinear region” of tire slip conditions. As suggested, “experienced drivers,” knowing that aggressive driving will likely break tire traction and therefore, reduce aggressive, and therefore, reduce the acceleration threshold to prevent tire slip. One of ordinary skill would have carried this practice for safer driving.
On claim 5, Ucar and Berntorp cites:
The method of claim 1 which also includes determining a second acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the second acceleration is associated with a decreasing speed of the vehicle. See the rejection of claim 4, wherein reduced acceleration, which is reduced velocity/speed, leads to safer driving.
On claim 6, Ucar and Berntorp cites:
The method of claim 5 wherein the aggression rating is determined at least in part as a function of a magnitude of the second acceleration. See the rejection of claim 4, wherein reduced acceleration, which is reduced velocity/speed, leads to safer driving. Thus, a lesser acceleration would lead to less periods of exceeding average acceleration, and therefore, the aggression rating is reduced.
On claim 11, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 wherein the first acceleration threshold is adjusted as a function of a driving condition that is determined to reduce a traction level of the vehicle.
(Claim 11 is interpreted in the following manner: “a driving condition that is determined to reduce a traction level of the vehicle” means a vehicle is driven to the point the vehicle loses its traction. In this interpretation, accelerating the vehicle to a cause the vehicle to break traction qualifies for this claimed feature. The claimed “wherein the first acceleration threshold is adjusted” means the acceleration quantity of the vehicle is varied in order to accomplish something. Taken together, the acceleration of the vehicle is varied as a function of the driving condition of the vehicle that is determined to the point the vehicle loses its traction).
Ucar cites:
[0025] alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
Ucar doesn’t cite the excepted claim limitations.
In the similar art of tire friction functions, Berntorp cites:
[0058] For a real-time determination of the tire friction function, which is nonlinear for large slip values, data would need to be collected on the entire tire friction function over a short time period, which is challenging because it requires driving at/close to the unstable region of the vehicle dynamics. This operating region is not typically visited during normal vehicle driving, and it may be dangerous to visit this part of the dynamics with either a controller that has not yet acquired a good prediction model for the vehicle behavior, as closed-loop instability may occur. For a human driver of the vehicle, it is possible to driving aggressive enough such that the nonlinear region is excited, however, it takes an experienced driver, since a regular driver typically is not typically used to such excessive steering and/or acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the features disclosed in Berntorp such that the excepted claim limitations are realized.
Ucar discloses at least an acceleration quantity associated with abnormal driving. Ucar thusly suggests there are acceleration quantities not associated with abnormal driving. Ucar doesn’t disclose the acceleration quantities as corresponding to traction levels.
However, Berntorp discloses that driving aggressively into a non-linear region of a friction function of a tire would lead to a tire breaking traction, or the tire slipping. Accordingly, Ucar’s embodiment suggests acceleration quantities that are not associated with abnormal driving, and under this rubric, there are acceleration quantities, or non-aggressive driving, that will not cause the tire to slip, where the driver’s actions do not cause the vehicle to enter into the non-linear tire friction function. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first acceleration threshold is adjusted as a function of a driving condition that is determined to reduce a traction level of the vehicle,” is met when one of ordinary skill would adjust the driver’s behavior to not accelerate to cause the vehicle to break traction. One of ordinary skill would have modified Ucar using Berntorp’s embodiment to keep the car in traction as a result of non-aggressive reasonable driving under acceleration conditions not prone to tire slip.
On claim 14, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 which includes determining one or more driving conditions that affect a traction level of the vehicle, and adjusting the first acceleration threshold as a function of the one or more driving conditions.
(Claim 14 is interpreted in the following manner: “a driving condition that is determined to affect a traction level of the vehicle” means a vehicle is driven to the point the vehicle loses its traction. In this interpretation, accelerating the vehicle to a cause the vehicle to break traction qualifies for this claimed feature. The claimed “adjusting the first acceleration threshold as a function of the one or more driving conditions” means the acceleration quantity of the vehicle is varied in order to accomplish something. Taken together, the acceleration of the vehicle is varied as a function of the driving condition of the vehicle that is determined to the point the vehicle loses its traction).
Ucar cites:
[0025] alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
Ucar doesn’t cite the excepted claim limitations.
In the similar art of tire friction functions, Berntorp cites:
[0058] For a real-time determination of the tire friction function, which is nonlinear for large slip values, data would need to be collected on the entire tire friction function over a short time period, which is challenging because it requires driving at/close to the unstable region of the vehicle dynamics. This operating region is not typically visited during normal vehicle driving, and it may be dangerous to visit this part of the dynamics with either a controller that has not yet acquired a good prediction model for the vehicle behavior, as closed-loop instability may occur. For a human driver of the vehicle, it is possible to driving aggressive enough such that the nonlinear region is excited, however, it takes an experienced driver, since a regular driver typically is not typically used to such excessive steering and/or acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the features disclosed in Berntorp such that the excepted claim limitations are realized.
Ucar discloses at least an acceleration quantity associated with abnormal driving. Ucar thusly suggests there are acceleration quantities not associated with abnormal driving. Ucar doesn’t disclosed the acceleration quantities as corresponding to traction levels.
However, Berntorp discloses that driving aggressively into a non-linear region of a friction function of a tire would lead to a tire breaking traction, or the tire slipping. Accordingly, Ucar’s embodiment suggests acceleration quantities that are not associated with abnormal driving, and under this rubric, there are acceleration quantities, or non-aggressive driving, that will not cause the tire to slip, where the driver’s actions do not cause the vehicle to enter into the non-linear tire friction function. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first acceleration threshold is adjusted as a function of a driving condition that is determined to reduce a traction level of the vehicle,” is met when one of ordinary skill would adjust the driver’s behavior to not accelerate to cause the vehicle to break traction. One of ordinary skill would have modified Ucar using Berntorp’s embodiment to keep the car in traction as a result of non-aggressive reasonable driving under acceleration conditions not prone to tire slip.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Berntorp, U.S. 2020/0290577 and Isono et al., U.S. 2017/0183009.
On claim 3, Ucar cites except:
The method of claim 2 wherein the magnitude of acceleration at which a tire of the vehicle will slip is determined based upon actuation of a traction control system of the vehicle.
In the rejection of claim 2, Ucar and Berntorp discloses an embodiment wherein tire slip is determined due to accelerations likely associated with aggressive driving.
Neither, however, disclose the feature of tire slip associated with a traction control system.
In the art of vehicle control systems, Isono discloses:
[0031] In order to execute an anti-lock brake control, a traction control, an electronic stability control, a dynamic yaw rate control and so on, the first ECU 21 calculates a target yaw rate, a target acceleration, a target deceleration and a target tire slip ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar and Berntorp the traction control embodiment of Isono such that the claimed embodiment involving tire traction is measured corresponding to measured accelerations of the vehicle.
Isono discloses a known feature for associating accelerations with traction control systems of a vehicle and one of ordinary skill, apprise of this feature, would have incorporated the traction control system to have a safer vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Bai et al., U.S. 2018/0005254 and Isono et al., U.S. 2017/0183009.
On claim 7, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 which also includes determining a third acceleration of the vehicle, wherein the third acceleration is a lateral acceleration associated with the turning of the vehicle.
Ucar disclosed:
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right.
Ucar disclosed a scenario wherein a driver driving aggressively, such as in the above, where the driver being another vehicle, moves left or right to pass a preceding vehicle. However, Ucar doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations.
In the related art of vehicle control systems, Isono discloses:
[0030] For example, the signals representing details of driver's operations such as a depression of an accelerator pedal, a depressing force or a depression of a brake pedal, a steering angle and a steering torque of a steering wheel are sent to the first ECU 21. Also, the signals representing vehicle behaviors such as a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, a yaw rate of the vehicle Ve, and speeds and torques of the wheels 3R, 3L, 4R and 4L are sent to the first ECU 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the known feature of signals representing driver’s operations, to include lateral acceleration, such as the embodiment disclosed in Isono, to take the place of the driver’s left and right movements, as disclosed in Ucar wherein lateral accelerations are measured responsive to the driver’s left and right steering movements to indicate likely aggressive driving. One of ordinary skill would have measured the lateral accelerations as indicators of aggressive driving while attempting to pass a preceding vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Bai et al., U.S. 2018/0005254 and Isono et al., U.S. 2017/0183009 and Shalev-Shwartz et al., U.S. 2019/0291728, hereinafter, Shalev.
On claim 8, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 7 wherein the aggression rating is determined at least in part as a function of a magnitude of the third acceleration. In the rejection of claim 7, Ucar and Isono discloses a feature in which lateral movements and commensurate lateral accelerations indicate aggressive driving of a driver following a preceding vehicle. However, neither discloses a magnitude associated with the cited lateral, or third acceleration.
In the similar art of navigating a vehicle, Shalev, [0371] discloses:
System 100 may make an aggressive/defensive if, for example, a vehicle exceeds 0.5G acceleration or deceleration (e.g., jerk 5 m/s3), a vehicle has a lateral acceleration of 0.5G in a lane change or on a curve, a vehicle causes another vehicle to do any of the above, a vehicle changes lanes and causes another vehicle to give way by more than 0.3G deceleration or jerk of 3 m/s3, and/or a vehicle changes two lanes without stopping.
Accordingly, Shavlev includes lateral accelerations expressed as a “jerk,” along with tangible numbers illustrating the amount of lateral acceleration to aggressive behavior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar and Isono the features of Shalev such that the claimed invention is realized. One of ordinary skill would have wanted to know how much acceleration is associated with aggressive driving to forewarn the driver or others of the aggressive driving.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Bai et al., U.S. 2018/0005254 and Chen et al., U.S. 11,508,236.
On claim 13, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 1 wherein the first acceleration is associated with an increasing speed of the vehicle,
[0025] For example, in some embodiments a type of abnormal driving behavior includes an aggressive driver as defined by the occurrence of the following criteria: (1) many attempts by a remote vehicle to pass a preceding vehicle (e.g., lane change to the left, followed by another lane change to the right, or vice versa, with the goal of passing the same vehicle); (2) traffic congestion; (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data); and (4) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of velocity that exceeds the average velocity of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data). Early detection of this type of abnormal driving behavior occurs if the detection system determines that abnormal driving behavior of this this is occurring based on detecting a subset of the total criteria for this type of abnormal driving behavior.
(the underlined definition of acceleration is considered to be the first acceleration, which is an acceleration considered to be associated with aggressive driving)
and
wherein a second acceleration is monitored and
a third acceleration is monitored,
the second acceleration is associated with a decreasing speed of the vehicle and
the third acceleration is associated with turning of the vehicle, and
wherein the output is provided when the second acceleration exceeds a second acceleration threshold
or when the third acceleration exceeds a third acceleration threshold.
Regarding the excepted: wherein a second acceleration is monitored and
a third acceleration is monitored, the second acceleration is associated with a decreasing speed of the vehicle and the third acceleration is associated with turning of the vehicle, Ucar, as disclosed above, included an embodiment of an acceleration considered to be associated with aggressive driving. This acceleration was deemed to be analogous to the claimed “first acceleration.” Ucar doesn’t disclose the second or third accelerations.
In the same art of driver monitoring, Chen, col. 6, lines 1-15 cites:
(26) It should be noted that the online on-demand transportation service, such as online taxi hailing, is a newly emerged service rooted in post-Internet era. It provides the technical solutions to the passengers and drivers that could raise in post-Internet era. In the pre-Internet era, when a passenger hails a taxi, the passenger may have no knowledge of an estimated time of arrival to a destination or location. If the passenger hails a taxi through a telephone call, it may be difficult for the service provider (e.g., a driver, a taxi company, a post office, a delivery company, or an agent, etc.) to estimate a time arriving the destination for the passenger. Online on-demand transportation system, however, may determine movement data associated with the driving behavior such as an aggressive acceleration, an aggressive braking, or an aggressive turn.
(the above cited “aggressive braking” and “aggressive turn” is considered analogous the claimed second and third accelerations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar the cited features of Chen such that the cited braking is analogous to the claimed “second and third acceleration.” Chen discloses a known feature in the determination of driver monitoring and one of ordinary skill would have included monitoring driver braking as another means of disclosing driver aggressiveness and driver fitness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Chen et al., U.S. 11,508,236, and Sumers, U.S. 2017/0236411.
On claim 18, Ucar cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 16 wherein one of the first acceleration and the second acceleration is given a positive magnitude and the other of the first acceleration and the second acceleration is given a negative magnitude.
Ucar, as previously disclosed includes:
[0025] (3) the remote vehicle periodically or consistently experiencing periods of acceleration that exceeds the average acceleration of the other vehicles nearby the remote vehicle (or, alternatively, an acceleration that satisfies a threshold for acceleration as described by the threshold data
(the cited “exceeding the average acceleration” is analogous to the claimed “first acceleration”)
Chen disclosed;
Online on-demand transportation system, however, may determine movement data associated with the driving behavior such as an aggressive acceleration, an aggressive braking, or an aggressive turn.
(the cited “braking” is analogous to the claimed “second acceleration”)
Ucar doesn’t disclose the excepted claim limitations.
In the same art of driver monitoring, Sumers cites:
[0030] By way of example, the driving analysis component 150 can implement vehicle acceleration determination logic 152 to detect and characterize braking actions of the driver. In one implementation, the vehicle acceleration determination logic 152 can utilize measured acceleration data 129 as input, specifically to obtain a measurement of the acceleration over a given time span or distance. The vehicle acceleration determination logic 152 can use the measured acceleration data 129 to make a measurement of positive or negative acceleration in the direction of travel (representing pedal input by user or braking).
In this passage, Sumers discloses positive braking as associated with “pedal input,” that is, gas pedal, or acceleration, while negative acceleration is associated with braking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to include into Ucar and Chen the acceleration labeling features disclosed in Sumers wherein positive acceleration is associated with the claimed first acceleration and the claimed second acceleration is associated with braking or negative acceleration.
One of ordinary skill would have included these labels as a reference points to determine the direction of acceleration of the car to determine driver performance.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Ucar et al., U.S. 2023/0073151 in view of Chen et al., U.S. 11,508,236, and Sumers, U.S. 2017/0236411 and Smith 2023.
On claim 19, Ucar, Chen, and Sumers cites except as underlined:
The method of claim 18 wherein the magnitude of acceleration for a given aggression rating is different for the first acceleration than for the second acceleration.
As disclosed in the rejection of claim 18, the first and second accelerations are analogous to the cited forward acceleration of a vehicle and braking, respectively. However, none of the references disclose how the magnitude of acceleration for a given aggression rating is different for the vehicle acceleration (as in the user is stepping on the gas pedal) as opposed to the user using the brakes.
In the related field of fleet performance driving, Smith, page 3/8 discloses:
A study by the Department of Transportation shows a clear correlation between safer driving and fuel economy. Using telematics to track driver behavior, researchers found that even though the drivers in the study were coached on how to improve their safe driving habits — not on how to save fuel — they consistently showed improved fuel economy as they adopted these safer driving habits and became less likely to accelerate sharply or use hard braking.
Each act of aggressive braking or acceleration increases fuel consumption by as much as a half-gallon of fuel, according to data from the Accident Research Centre at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Conversely, researchers also found that driving without harsh accelerations, hard braking or sudden lane changes resulted in less fuel consumption, as well as lower vehicle operation and maintenance costs.
Hard braking and aggressive acceleration increase wear and tear on vehicles, creating a greater need for repairs and compromising the vehicle’s safety. Over time, hard braking significantly decreases the lifespan of the brakes and wears out the pads, requiring them to be replaced more often.
The implication of Smith’s recitations are that while aggressive braking and accelerations cause an increase in fuel consumption, aggressive braking adds to the issue of increases in maintenance costs manifested in decreasing the lifespan of brakes and wearing out of the pads, therefore requiring more frequent replacement of these items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to place a difference in the magnitude of accelerations between the claimed first and second accelerations. It has been asserted the first and second accelerations are respectively the driver accelerating the vehicle by pressing the gas pedal, and the driver braking. One of ordinary skill would have categorized the difference of the magnitude of these accelerations due to the associated costs to the driver for each respective type acceleration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argument regarding the rejection of claim 1 has been carefully reviewed.
The amendments include: “determining a magnitude and direction of a first acceleration of a vehicle; comparing the magnitude of the first acceleration to a first acceleration threshold that relates to vehicle acceleration in the determined direction; determining an aggression rating based at least in part on a magnitude of the difference between the first acceleration and the first acceleration threshold, where a greater difference results in a higher aggression rating indicating higher driving aggression”;
and
“providing an output to a driver of the vehicle when the first aggression rating exceeds the a threshold for the aggression rating.”
However, the Examiner asserts these amendments were not examined in the prior Office Action, making the applicant’s arguments moot since the amendments now require a new search and consideration.
On the applicant’s argument regarding Ucar’s cited “remote vehicle,” it is asserted
“the portions of Ucar cited in the Office Action do not teach or suggest
determining an aggression rating for the ego vehicle or providing an output to a driver of the ego vehicle when the aggression rating for the ego vehicle exceeds a threshold, as set forth in claim 1. Instead, Ucar determines when vehicles other than the ego vehicle (again, called "remote vehicles" in Ucar) are driving abnormally which may include aggressive driving actions performed by the other vehicles.”
Regarding the applicant’s arguments on the claim limitations regarding “providing an output to a driver of the vehicle when the aggression rating exceeds a threshold for the aggression rating,” the examiner finds the applicant’s argument persuasive and has amended the rejection accordingly. However, because there are other amendments to the claim as indicated above, the totality of amendments applied to the claim required a new search and consideration rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
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 CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686