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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 5/25/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the European application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes that the Office issued a Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report on 10/25/2024 indicating that electronic retrieval of the priority document was unsuccessful. Examiner suggests Applicant file a certified copy of the foreign priority document expeditiously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “determining, by the ego-vehicle, a collision risk between the at least two vehicles based on the safe braking distance information, the distance information, and the speed information; and determining, by the ego-vehicle, a lane invasion risk for at least one of the at least two vehicles if the collision risk has been determined.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process in the form of a judgement and/or evaluation capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can visually observe two vehicles traveling in an adjacent lane and, based upon the distance between them, their speeds, and an estimated safe braking distance, determine that it is likely that the rearward vehicle may change lanes in order to avoid a collision. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a particular technological environment, namely road vehicular travel.
The claim recites an additional element of “receiving or determining, by the ego-vehicle, a distance information indicative of a distance between the at least two vehicles, a speed information indicative of a speed of each of the at least two vehicles, and a safe braking distance information indicative of a safe braking distance of at least a rearward one of the at least two vehicles.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, amounts to data transmission between two vehicles. The transmission of data over a network has been held as being well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Alternatively, the specification also provides this action may be performed using detection data from a camera (see [0056] and [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed). The collection of available information using known techniques or sources has been held as not being enough to render an abstract idea patent-eligible (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “receiving, by the ego-vehicle, detection data comprising a representation of the at least two vehicles.” As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claim further recites “determining, by the ego-vehicle, the distance information or the speed information based on the detection data.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises determining at least one of: a lateral offset between the at least two vehicles based on the detection data, a lateral position on adjacent lane of the at least two vehicles based on the detection data, a lateral distance of each of the at least two vehicles from the ego-lane based on the detection data, or a width of each of the at least two vehicles.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “determining, by the ego-vehicle, a distance between the ego-vehicle and each of the at least two vehicles indicated by the detection data.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
The claim further recites “ignoring, by the ego-vehicle, all vehicles indicated by the detection data and being located at a distance from the ego-vehicle exceeding a predefined distance threshold or being located behind the ego-vehicle along a traveling direction.” This limitation merely specifies what data is used in the claimed determination processes and does not yield a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the claim merely further specifies when the collision risk is determined. This does not change the determination from being a mental process as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “receiving, by the ego-vehicle, a weight information indicative of a weight of each of the at least two vehicles.” As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises triggering parametrizing and executing a simulation model.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mathematical operation in the form of a mathematical simulation model. Mathematical operations have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim includes no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises triggering parametrizing and executing a simulation model.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mathematical operation in the form of a mathematical simulation model. Mathematical operations have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim includes no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises receiving turning behavior data indicating a turning behavior of at least one of the at least two vehicles in case of a collision.” As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “determining a safe braking distance of each of the at least two vehicles comprises determining a vehicle model of at least the rearward one of the at least two vehicles, resulting in a determined vehicle model.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0084] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the determining the safe braking distance of each of the at least two vehicles comprises requesting safe braking distance data indicating the safe braking distance from a database based on the determined vehicle model and a monitored traveling speed.” As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, querying a database is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites, in part, “determining a collision risk between the at least two vehicles based on the safe braking distance information, the distance information, and the speed information; and determining a lane invasion risk for at least one of the at least two vehicles if the collision risk has been determined.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process in the form of a judgement and/or evaluation capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can visually observe two vehicles traveling in an adjacent lane and, based upon the distance between them, their speeds, and an estimated safe braking distance, determine that it is likely that the rearward vehicle may change lanes in order to avoid a collision. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a particular technological environment, namely road vehicular travel.
The claim recites an additional element of “receiving or determining a distance information indicative of a distance between the at least two vehicles, a speed information indicative of a speed of each of the at least two vehicles, and a safe braking distance information indicative of a safe braking distance of at least a rearward one of the at least two vehicles.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, amounts to data transmission between two vehicles. The transmission of data over a network has been held as being well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Alternatively, the specification also provides this action may be performed using detection data from a camera (see [0056] and [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed). The collection of available information using known techniques or sources has been held as not being enough to render an abstract idea patent-eligible (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)).
The claim further recites an additional element of “a non-transitory machine-readable medium.” The invocation of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “receiving detection data comprising a representation of the at least two vehicles.” As noted in the rejection of claim 13 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
The claim further recites “determining the distance information or the speed information based on the detection data.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
Regarding claim 16, the claim merely further specifies when the collision risk is determined. This does not change the determination from being a mental process as outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites, in part, “determining a collision risk between the at least two vehicles based on the safe braking distance information, the distance information, and the speed information; and determining a lane invasion risk for at least one of the at least two vehicles if the collision risk has been determined.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process in the form of a judgement and/or evaluation capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can visually observe two vehicles traveling in an adjacent lane and, based upon the distance between them, their speeds, and an estimated safe braking distance, determine that it is likely that the rearward vehicle may change lanes in order to avoid a collision. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way beyond being generally linked to a particular technological environment, namely road vehicular travel.
The claim recites an additional element of “receiving or determining a distance information indicative of a distance between the at least two vehicles, a speed information indicative of a speed of each of the at least two vehicles, and a safe braking distance information indicative of a safe braking distance of at least a rearward one of the at least two vehicles.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, amounts to data transmission between two vehicles. The transmission of data over a network has been held as being well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Alternatively, the specification also provides this action may be performed using detection data from a camera (see [0056] and [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed). The collection of available information using known techniques or sources has been held as not being enough to render an abstract idea patent-eligible (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2016)).
The claim further recites additional elements of “at least one processor” and “at least one memory”. The invocation of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim further recites an additional element of “an ego-vehicle.” This limitation merely links the execution of the abstract idea into a particular technological environment and does not amount to integration into a practical application.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “receiving a weight information indicative of a weight of each of the at least two vehicles.” As noted in the rejection of claim 17 above, the transmission and receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises triggering parametrizing and executing a simulation model.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mathematical operation in the form of a mathematical simulation model. Mathematical operations have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim includes no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “determining the lane invasion risk comprises determining at least one of: a lateral offset between the at least two vehicles based on the detection data, a lateral position on adjacent lane of the at least two vehicles based on the detection data, a lateral distance of each of the at least two vehicles from the ego-lane based on the detection data, or a width of each of the at least two vehicles.” In light of the specification (see [0076]-[0083] of the specification as-filed), this limitation is extra-solution activity that uses well-understood, routine, and conventional computer vision techniques.
Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that claims 12 and 14 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 12 and 14 recite “triggering an avoidance maneuver if a lane invasion risk has been determined.” This limitation is indicative of integration into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 depends from claim 1, which recites the following (emphasis added):
A method for determining a lane invasion risk associated with at least one out of at least two vehicles traveling behind one another on a lane adjacent to an ego-lane on which an ego-vehicle comprising a processor is traveling, the method comprising:
receiving or determining, by the ego-vehicle, a distance information indicative of a distance between the at least two vehicles, a speed information indicative of a speed of each of the at least two vehicles, and a safe braking distance information indicative of a safe braking distance of at least a rearward one of the at least two vehicles;
determining, by the ego-vehicle, a collision risk between the at least two vehicles based on the safe braking distance information, the distance information, and the speed information; and
determining, by the ego-vehicle, a lane invasion risk for at least one of the at least two vehicles if the collision risk has been determined.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13, which recites similar limitations. The prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious the emphasized limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Tanaka et al. (US 2023/0159035 A1) [hereinafter “Tanaka”] teaches a vehicle behavior estimation method that predicts the behavior of surrounding vehicles (see Abstract). Tanaka teaches a vehicle behavior estimation unit 36 of an ego vehicle predicts that a vehicle 4 traveling in an adjacent lane will likely invade the lane of the ego vehicle based on a distance and speed of the vehicle 4 relative to a vehicle 5 that travels in front of vehicle 4 (see [0210]-[0237]).
However, Tanaka does not take into account a safe braking distance when determining the collision risk between vehicles 4 and 5 and the subsequent risk of vehicle 4 invading the lane of the ego vehicle.
Kim (US 2019/0179339 A1) similarly teaches a method for controlling a vehicle (see Abstract). Kim teaches determining the possibility of a collision and possibility of a lane change of a vehicle based on the vehicle’s distance to an obstacle, the vehicle’s speed, and a braking distance according to the speed (see [0057]). However Kim teaches this is done for vehicle traveling together in the same lane in a convoy, and not for a host vehicle used to determine a lane invasion risk of a vehicle in a neighboring lane.
There is no evidence in the available prior art that it would have been obvious to use the safe braking distance in determining a collision risk between the two vehicles and subsequently the lane invasion risk of one of those two vehicles into the ego vehicle’s lane.
Accordingly, claims 12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Okonogi (US 2023/0021000 A1) generally teaches:
A vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control system according to the present invention obtain an inter-vehicle time based on a relative distance between a first vehicle traveling, in front of an own vehicle, in a second lane adjacent to a first lane in which the own vehicle travels and a second vehicle traveling in the second lane in front of the first vehicle and based on a relative velocity of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle, obtain a relative acceleration of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle, set the first vehicle as a high-stress vehicle based on a lane change space that is based on the inter-vehicle time, the relative acceleration, and a relative distance between the second vehicle and a third vehicle traveling in the first lane in front of the own vehicle, and output a control command for changing a driving state of the own vehicle based on a relative distance between the high-stress vehicle and the own vehicle. This makes it possible to improve the driving safety of a vehicle on a road with multiple lanes in each direction.
Cho et al. (US 2022/0111838 A1) teaches, in part ([0007]):
Referring to FIG. 1, when a host vehicle 10 detects a forward object 20, such as a preceding vehicle that is stopped, while traveling in a first lane, the driver of the host vehicle 10 may attempt to change lanes to a second lane at a comparatively short distance from the forward object 20 (e.g. a distance at which an emergency braking function needs to be executed). If the driver of the host vehicle 10 determines that the lane change to the second lane is possible, the driver steers the host vehicle 10 at an angle large enough to avoid a collision with the forward object 20 and enters the second lane before a following vehicle 30 traveling in the second lane comes close to the host vehicle 10. At this time, however, if an emergency braking function is activated, the host vehicle 10 faces the risk of a collision with the following vehicle 30. This collision problem that occurs when changing lanes during travel may also occur in the case in which the driver of the host vehicle 10 starts to move the vehicle in the state in which the vehicle is parked in line with other parked vehicles on a shoulder.
Yoon (US 9802614 B1) generally teaches:
There are provided an apparatus and a method for controlling a lane change considering priority. The apparatus for controlling a lane change includes: a collision judger checking whether or not there is an object vehicle having collision possibility that attempts to change a lane from a region of interest road corresponding to an ego-road on which an ego-vehicle is being driven to a target road to which the ego-vehicle changes the lane, before or during the lane change of the ego-vehicle; and a priority determiner determining a priority vehicle that first performs the lane change among the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle considering at least one of accessibility to the target road of the ego-vehicle and the object vehicle when there is the object vehicle, and accessibility to a join point when the object vehicle or the ego-vehicle is positioned on a road to be joined.
Han et al. (US 2013/0166150 A1) generally teaches:
Disclosed is a system and method for controlling inter-vehicle distance. The system includes a front sensor, a side and rear sensor, an inter-vehicle distance controlling unit, and a steering controlling unit. The front sensor obtains information relating to a preceding vehicle. The side and rear sensor obtains information relating to vehicles in right and left lanes. The inter-vehicle distance controlling unit determines an avoidance direction for a lane change from data detected by the side and rear sensor when it is determined from data detected by the front sensor that a front end collision is unavoidable through just brake input. The steering controlling unit receives information relating to the avoidance direction determined by the inter-vehicle distance controlling unit and applies a steering force to a steering device to guide a driver to a lane in the determined avoidance direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667