DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application KR10-2023-0127178 filed on 09/22/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Payagalage-Don, referred to as Don (US20250222735) in view of Yako (US20190176814) and Le Merrer, referred to as Merrer (US20160200275).
Regarding claim 1, Don teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a collision risk determination device ([0055]-[0056] disclosing determining collision risk by the processing device, i.e., determination device);
a collision determination device ([0077] disclosing determining a collision by the processing device, determination device); and
a processor configured to ([0010] disclosing the processor):
determine whether a second vehicle is present within a specified distance from a first vehicle, through the collision risk determination device ([0055] disclosing the other vehicle is sufficiently close to the host vehicle, sufficiently close is interpreted as a sufficient distance);
obtain an impact value associated with a collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on an acceleration acting on the first vehicle, a yaw rate of the first vehicle, and a roll rate of the first vehicle through the collision determination device ([0077] disclosing a impact value associated with a collision based on acceleration, yaw rate and a roll rate of the vehicle, the impact value is all or one of the above values compared to a threshold);
identify the collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the impact value exceeding an impact threshold value ([0077] disclosing identifying the collision based on the acceleration, yaw or roll rate exceeding the threshold).; and
Don does not teach determine a type of the second vehicle, wherein the impact threshold value is determined based on the type of the second vehicle; change a driving mode of the vehicle from a first mode associated with an autonomous driving mode to a second mode controlled by a user based on a result of identifying the collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.
Yako teaches change a driving mode of the vehicle from a first mode associated with an autonomous driving mode to a second mode controlled by a user based on a result of identifying the collision between the vehicle and the second vehicle ([0040]-[0041] disclosing after a collision detected, to transfer control to the driver to stop the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Don to incorporate the teaching of Yako of change a driving mode of the vehicle from a first mode associated with an autonomous driving mode to a second mode controlled by a user based on a result of identifying the collision between the vehicle and the external object in order to prevent autonomous operation of possibly damaged components of the vehicle due to the impact thus improving safety as taught by Yako [0041].
Merrer teaches determine a type of the second vehicle ([0064] disclosing determining a type of the second vehicle wherein the type could be a cyclist, i.e., two wheeled vehicle).
wherein the impact threshold value is determined based on the type of the second vehicle (at least [0020]-[0031] disclosing the second threshold based on the object being not a cyclist is greater than the first threshold when the object classification is a cyclist, see also [0090]-[0095] disclosing setting different threshold for non pedestrians or cyclists);
It would have been obvious to combine/substitute the teaching of Don as modified by Yako and Ewert with the adjustment of threshold of Merrer in order to activate a safety system in a most appropriate matter based on the object classification as taught by Merrer [0011] yielding predictable results and improving safety of pedestrians.
Regarding claim 10, Don as modified by Yako teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, Specifically, Don teaches wherein the impact threshold value includes a threshold acceleration, a threshold yaw rate, and a threshold roll rate, and wherein the processor is configured to: identify that the impact value exceeds the impact threshold value, based on a fact that the acceleration acting on the vehicle exceeds the threshold acceleration, the yaw rate of the first vehicle exceeds the threshold yaw rate, and the roll rate of the vehicle exceeds the threshold roll rate ([0077] disclosing the acceleration, yaw rate and the roll rate exceed a threshold); and
identify the collision between the fist vehicle and the second vehicle based on the impact value exceeding an impact threshold value ([0077] disclosing the acceleration, yaw rate and roll rate exceed a threshold to determine a collision).
Claims 11, 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, 10, respectively see above rejection.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Payagalage-Don, referred to as Don (US20250222735) in view of Yako (US20190176814) and and Le Merrer, referred to as Merrer (US20160200275) and Nagaya (US20220219680).
Regarding claim 2, Don as modified by Yako and Merrer teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the acceleration acting on the first vehicle includes lateral acceleration acting in a lateral direction of the firs vehicle, a longitudinal acceleration acting in a longitudinal direction of the first vehicle (Don [0077] disclosing the lateral and longitudinal acceleration).
Nagaya teaches a vertical acceleration acting in a vertical direction of the vehicle ([0109] disclosing the accident determination based on the vertical acceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Don as modified by Yako and Merrer to incorporate the teaching of Nagaya. Don determines collision based on accelerations, Nagaya further determines the collision based on vertical acceleration profile, the combination/substitution is obvious to determine a collision that is based on vertical acceleration that is different than the normal vertical acceleration expected based on road surfaces thus improving the accuracy of the detected collision and also for the purpose of redundancy in determination method and thus improving driving safety.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, see above rejection.
Claims 4, 6, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Payagalage-Don, referred to as Don (US20250222735) in view of Yako (US20190176814) and Le Merrer, referred to as Merrer (US20160200275) and Ewert (US20190179323).
Regarding claim 4, Don as modified by Yako and Merrer teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, Don as modified by Yako and Merrer does not teach further comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the processor is configured to: receive object information including a type of the second vehicle and a state of the second vehicle through the communication circuit; (Merrer [0020]-[0031], [0103] disclosing receiving signals including object type being a two wheeled vehicle such as cyclist and the speed information of the two wheeled vehicle).
The combination of Merrer’s teaching of object type and the state of the object such as speed is obvious yielding predictable result in order to precisely infer the impacting object from the in crash sensor based on the speed of the other vehicle.
Ewert teaches further comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the processor is configured to: receive object information through the communication circuit; and change the impact threshold value based on the object information ([0045]-[0047] disclosing communicating information between vehicles, see also [0058] disclosing the transmitting the information to a further vehicle. [0055]-[0056] disclosing the type of an object being a pedestrian is received by a vehicle and the location “state” of the object and the adjusting of algorithm thresholds to detect an event of impact with the pedestrian reliably).
The combination is obvious in order to adjust the threshold for reliably detecting a collision with a second vehicle based on the class being obtained yielding predictable results and improving safety by activating a pedestrian protection as taught by Ewert, Merrer already teaches a pedestrian class includes a two wheeled vehicle, thus the combination is obvious to protect a pedestrian on a bicycle.
Regarding claim 6, Don as modified by Yako and Merrer and Ewert does not teach further teaches control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the state of the second vehicle includes at least one of a speed of the second vehicle, a direction in which the second vehicle approaches the first vehicle, or any combination thereof (Merrer [0020]-[0031], [0103] disclosing receiving signals including object type being a two wheeled vehicle such as cyclist and the speed information of the two wheeled vehicle).
The combination of Merrer’s teaching of object type and the state of the object such as speed is obvious yielding predictable result in order to precisely infer the impacting object from the in crash sensor based on the speed of the other vehicle.
Claims 14, 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 4, 6, respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Payagalage-Don, referred to as Don (US20250222735) in view of Yako (US20190176814) and Ewert (US20190179323) and Le Merrer, referred to as Merrer (US20160200275).
Regarding claim 5, Don as modified by Yako and Ewert teaches vehicle control apparatus of claim 4, Specifically,
Ewert teaches wherein the processor is configured to: change the impact threshold value to a first impact threshold value when the type of the second vehicle is a first type indicating at least one of a pedestrian, a bicycle, a two- wheeled vehicle, or any combination thereof ([0045]-[0047] disclosing communicating information between vehicles, see also [0058] disclosing the transmitting the information to a further vehicle. [0055]-[0056] disclosing the type of an object being a pedestrian is received by a vehicle and the location “state” of the object and the adjusting of algorithm thresholds to detect an event of impact with the pedestrian reliably).
The combination is obvious in order to adjust the threshold for reliably detecting a collision with a pedestrian based on the class being obtained yielding predictable results and improving safety by activating a pedestrian protection as taught by Ewert.
Merrer further teaches change the impact threshold value to a second impact threshold value exceeding the first impact threshold value when the type of the second vehicle is a second type indicating a passenger vehicle ([0031] disclosing the second threshold based on the object being not a pedestrian is greater than the first threshold when the object classification is a pedestrian, see also [0090]-[0095] disclosing setting different threshold for non pedestrians);
It would have been obvious to combine/substitute the teaching of Don as modified by Yako and Ewert with the adjustment of threshold of Merrer in order to activate a safety system in a most appropriate matter based on the object classification as taught by Merrer [0011] yielding predictable results and improving safety of pedestrians. The combination/substitution of the first vehicle type being a regular vehicle as taught by Don with the non-pedestrian vehicle of Merrer is obvious yielding predictable results in order to adjust the threshold sensitivity to better respond to each situation with precise control such as stopping the vehicle and enabling cushioning two wheeled vehicle is detected in case a pedestrian is detected.
While Merrer does not disclose change the impact threshold value to a third impact threshold value exceeding the second impact threshold value when the type of the second vehicle is a third type indicating at least one of a truck, a bus, or any combination thereof. Ewert discloses the amplitude of the detected signal of impact with the object is a function of the mass and speed of the object, Merrer already teaches the threshold for the vehicle which is bigger than a pedestrian are higher than a pedestrian and the ability to set more thresholds, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill to set a higher threshold for a bus or truck than the passenger vehicle since the impact is higher for the mass of the truck or bus yielding predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5, see above rejection.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Payagalage-Don, referred to as Don (US20250222735) in view of Yako (US20190176814) and Le Merrer, referred to as Merrer and (US20160200275) and Ewert (US20190179323) and Kim (US20210387645).
Regarding claim 7, Don as modified by Yako and Merrer and Ewert teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to:
While Don as modified by Yako and Merrer and Ewert do not teach apply a first weight to the impact threshold value based on the type of the second vehicle; and apply a second weight to the impact threshold value based on a relative speed between the second vehicle and the first vehicle. Ewert teaches changing the threshold based on the object type and the speed ([0056], [0011] disclosing the relative speed to change the TTC which is used to adjust the threshold in addition to the type of the object class).
Kim teaches weighting is increased to increase a threshold value ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the method of adjusting a weight by using a weight to the parameters that adjust the parameters of Ewert yielding predictable results. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7, see above rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, that “unlike the teaching of Don and Yako, changing driving mode is performed based on the result of identifying the collision between the first vehicle and second vehicle, identifying the collision is performed based on the impact threshold, impact threshold is based on type of second vehicle, Don already teaches the identification of the collision between two vehicles based on an impact exceeding a threshold [0055]-[0077]. Merrer is combined to teach changing the threshold based on object type thus the combination is obvious yielding predictable results to precisely detect the cyclist class vehicle thus improving safety.
Regarding the argument “Yako does not disclose the driving mode is changed based on identifying the collision between the two vehicles”. Nevertheless, the combination of changing the mode to a driver mode when a collision is detected is obvious yielding predictable results in case sensors are damaged wherein an autonomous mode would not be safe.
Regarding applicant’s argument “Don does not disclose the impact value threshold”, Don in at least [0077] disclosing the threshold for determining a collision, i.e., the impact threshold, is the acceleration/yaw and roll rates exceeding a threshold thus the threshold is based on the acceleration, roll and yaw rates.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Ewert and Merrer do not classify types of object, examiner disagrees, Merrer teaches the type of the second vehicle being a cyclist which is interpreted as a two wheeled vehicle thus teaches the determining of the type of the second vehicle. the combination is obvious to determine a different threshold for the two wheeled vehicle to precisely determine the collision with the pedestrian on the bicycle thus improving the safety of people.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13, 8, 9, 18, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome any 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112b rejections on record.
Claim 3 would be allowable for disclosing the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: identify the second vehicle within the specified distance from the vehicle for a specified time; and identify the collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the impact value exceeding the impact threshold value for the specified time.
Claim 13 would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 3.
Claim 8 would be allowable for disclosing the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, further
comprising:
a communication circuit, wherein the processor is configured to: change the driving mode of the vehicle from the first mode to the second mode and concurrently reduce a speed of the vehicle when the impact value exceeds the impact threshold value and a difference between the impact value and the impact threshold value exceeds a reference value; and transmit a signal indicating that the vehicle is in an emergency state, to an external electronic device including a server through the communication circuit.
Claim 9 would be allowable for disclosing the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: make a request for changing the driving mode of the vehicle from the first mode to the second mode based on a fact that the impact value exceeds the impact threshold value, and a difference between the impact value and the impact threshold value is smaller than or equal to a reference value; and restrict an acceleration of the vehicle.
Claims 18-19 would be allowable for similar reasons as claims 8-9.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20200122674 teaches determining an impact based on acceleration, roll and yaw rates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 Information 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 PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B