DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 remain pending.
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
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 12/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 12/11/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant, in general, argues that neither Shunping, Hanslik, nor Ike refers to an obstructed preceding vehicle or performing behavior judgment based on fused information, and that none of the cited references refers to initiating an early alert when the distance from the potentially conflicting vehicle (TV2) to the obstructed preceding vehicle (TV1) is less than a preset value.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds the cited references disclose, teach or suggest the limitations of the instant claims. For instance, Hanslik describes a distance regulation system that determines a current actual distance from a vehicle ahead using sensor signals and determines a desired acceleration based on that distance to regulate the spacing between vehicles (i.e., performing behavior judgment based on fused information) (Hanslik ¶¶ 0016, 0040). Additionally, the Examiner finds Hanslik teaches comparing a desired acceleration provided by an assistance control device with a desired acceleration determined from sensor data (i.e., additional behavior judgment based on fused or combined information) (Hanslik ¶ 0036). Moreover, Hanslik teaches issuing a warning signal when a driving-critical deviation occurs (Hanslik ¶ 0036), and teaches proactive vehicle response based on transmitted surroundings information before the event is detectable by the subject vehicle’s own sensors, such as when a vehicle ahead initiates emergency braking (Hanslik ¶ 0054). As a result, the Examiner finds Hanslik teaches or at least suggests initiating an early alert or other control action based on a potentially critical vehicle-distance conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shunping et al. CN110422176A (hereinafter, Shunping), in view of Hanslik et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0130689A1 (hereinafter, Hanslik).
Regarding Claim 1, Shunping describes a decision and control method for ADAS in a preceding vehicle obstruction scene based on V2X (decision and control for ADAS of a vehicle based on a preceding vehicle, such as an obstruction, wherein the information of the obstruction is based on V2X, Shunping, Paragraphs 0033-0038), comprising:
-based on V2X perspective perception technology, collaboratively perceiving driving status information of an obstructed preceding vehicle (using V2X technology to determine driving information, such as an obstruction of the preceding vehicle, Shunping, Paragraphs 0033-0038 and 0019), and fusing with driving status information of a potentially conflicting vehicle perceived by on-board perception of ego vehicle (combining information, for example the V2X with sensors on-board of the vehicle to try and avoid items, such as a potential collision, Shunping, Paragraphs 0016-0021 and 0033-0038) ;
-based on fused information, performing behavior judgment of the potentially conflicting vehicle (based on the fused information, performing a behavior judgment of the potentially conflicting vehicle (e.g., warning), Shunping, Paragraphs 0037); …
Shunping does not specifically disclose the method to include making a control decision of the ego vehicle according to judgment result; wherein the control decision includes early alerting, mild decelerating and emergency braking, and a distance from its preceding vehicle is less than a preset value, initiating the early alerting to a driver.
Hanslik discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hanslik describes the ability of a vehicle system to make a control decision (e.g., braking, accelerating, warning, etc.) for the vehicle based on judgement results (e.g., sensor information that is analyzed) (Hanslik, Paragraphs 0016 and 0040). Moreover, Hanslik describes that the control decision can be that of alerting (e.g., warning signal), decelerating, and emergency braking (Hanslik, Paragraphs 0036, 0040, and 0054). Additionally, Hanslik describe the vehicle’s capability to alert a driver when the distance preceding the vehicle is less than a desired value (e.g., warning signal generated when a driving circital deviation has occurred, such as a distance dropping below a desired value) (Hanslik, Paragraph 0036).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shunping to include making a control decision of the ego vehicle according to judgment result; wherein the control decision includes early alerting, mild decelerating and emergency braking, and a distance from its preceding vehicle is less than a preset value, initiating the early alerting to a driver, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hanslik.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling the vehicle based on received information enables the vehicle to operate in a safe and reliable manner (Hanslik, Paragraphs 0028 and 0066).
Regarding Claim 2, Shunping, as modified, describes the decision and control method according to claim 1,wherein through V2X perspective perception technology achieving real-time V2V communication and information interaction with the potentially conflicting vehicle or achieving real-time V2I communication and information interaction with roadside unit equipment (real-time communication V2X, Shunping, Paragraph 0036), to obtain the driving status information of the potentially conflicting vehicle; through V2X perspective perception technology achieving real-time V2V communication and information interaction with the obstructed preceding vehicle (obtaining driving status information of the potential conflict vehicle, Shunping, Paragraphs 0043-0047), or achieving real-time V2I communication and information interaction with roadside unit equipment, to obtain the driving status information of the obstructed preceding vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Shunping, as modified, describes an advanced driver assistance system based on V2X perspective perception technology, which executes decision and control method according to claim 1 (based on the fused information, performing a behavior judgment of the potentially conflicting vehicle (e.g., warning) from V2X information, Shunping, Paragraphs 0037).
Regarding Claim 10, Shunping, as modified, describes an intelligent networked vehicle, wherein the intelligent networked vehicle comprises the advanced driver assistance system based on V2X perspective perception technology according to claim 9; on-board perception unit and roadside perception unit, providing target object information in an obstructed area for the advanced driver assistance system through V2X association and fusion perception (based on the fused information, receiving target information, Shunping, Paragraphs 0037-0046).
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shunping et al. CN110422176A (hereinafter, Shunping), in view of Hanslik et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2020/0130689A1 (hereinafter, Hanslik), in further view of Ike U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0244036A1 (hereinafter, Ike).
Regarding Claim 4, Shunping, as modified, describes the decision and control method according to claim 3.
Shunping does not specifically disclose the method to include that when D0o2<D0o2-alert, initiating an early alerting to a driver; wherein, DO02 is relative distance between the ego vehicle and the potentially conflicting vehicle, is an early alerting distance, D0o2-alert = Dstop-D2stop+Dpre1, wherein Dpre1 is a preset constant for early alerting in advance, Dstop is travel distance for the ego vehicle to decelerate to stop, D2stop is travel distance for the potentially conflicting vehicle to decelerate to stop.
Ike discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ike describes issuing commands or control of the vehicle based the vehicle being at different distances (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). For example, if the vehicle determines the distance is significant distance from collision, the vehicle will issue a level 1 warning to the driver (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). However, if the distance is not a significant distance from collision, the vehicle may try to avoid the collision by indicating the braking of the vehicle (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shunping to include when D0o2<D0o2-alert, initiating an early alerting to a driver; wherein, DO02 is relative distance between the ego vehicle and the potentially conflicting vehicle, is an early alerting distance, D0o2-alert = Dstop-D2stop+Dpre1, wherein Dpre1 is a preset constant for early alerting in advance, Dstop is travel distance for the ego vehicle to decelerate to stop, D2stop is travel distance for the potentially conflicting vehicle to decelerate to stop, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling the vehicle based on received information enables the vehicle to operate in a safe and reliable manner (Ike, Paragraphs 0002 and 0015).
Regarding Claim 6, Shunping, as modified, describes the decision and control method according to claim 3.
Shunping does not specifically disclose the method to include that when D0o2< DO02-mild, initiating a mild decelerating control; wherein, D0o2 is relative distance between the ego vehicle and the potentially conflicting vehicle, D002-mild triggering distance for the mild decelerating control, D002-mild = Dstop-D2stop, Dstop is travel distance for the ego vehicle to decelerate to stop, is travel distance for the potentially conflicting vehicle to decelerate to stop.
Ike discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ike describes issuing commands or control of the vehicle based the vehicle being at different distances (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). For example, if the vehicle determines the distance is significant distance from collision, the vehicle will issue a level 1 warning to the driver (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). However, if the distance is not a significant distance from collision, the vehicle may try to avoid the collision by indicating the braking of the vehicle, wherein the strength of the braking is based on the determined distance (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shunping to include D0o2< DO02-mild, initiating a mild decelerating control; wherein, D0o2 is relative distance between the ego vehicle and the potentially conflicting vehicle, D002-mild triggering distance for the mild decelerating control, D002-mild = Dstop-D2stop, Dstop is travel distance for the ego vehicle to decelerate to stop, is travel distance for the potentially conflicting vehicle to decelerate to stop, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling the vehicle based on received information enables the vehicle to operate in a safe and reliable manner (Ike, Paragraphs 0002 and 0015).
Regarding Claim 7, Shunping, as modified, describes the decision and control method according to claim 6.
Shunping does not specifically disclose the method to include that adjusting a deceleration of the mild decelerating in real time according to relative distance and relative speed between two vehicle when D0o2 > D0o2-mild + Dpre2, stopping decelerating, Dpre2 is a preset constant.
Ike discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ike describes issuing commands or control of the vehicle based the vehicle being at different distances (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). For example, if the vehicle determines the distance is significant distance from collision, the vehicle will issue a level 1 warning to the driver (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). However, if the distance is not a significant distance from collision, the vehicle may try to avoid the collision by indicating the braking of the vehicle, wherein the strength of the braking is based on the determined distance (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). Moreover, constant values can be added (Ike, Paragraph 0023).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shunping to include adjusting a deceleration of the mild decelerating in real time according to relative distance and relative speed between two vehicle when D0o2 > D0o2-mild + Dpre2, stopping decelerating, Dpre2 is a preset constant, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling the vehicle based on received information enables the vehicle to operate in a safe and reliable manner (Ike, Paragraphs 0002 and 0015).
Regarding Claim 8, Shunping, as modified, describes the decision and control method according to claim 3.
Shunping does not specifically disclose the method to include that when a minimum value of an absolute value of a deceleration of the ego vehicle |amin| is greater than A_aeb, initiating an emergency braking control, wherein A_aeb is set value.
Ike discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ike describes issuing commands or control of the vehicle based the vehicle being at different distances (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). For example, if the vehicle determines the distance is significant distance from collision, the vehicle will issue a level 1 warning to the driver (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). However, if the distance is not a significant distance from collision, the vehicle may try to avoid the collision by indicating the braking of the vehicle, wherein the strength of the braking is based on the determined distance (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023). Moreover, if the distance is less than the maximum braking value, then initiate the emergency braking (Ike, Paragraphs 0022-0023)
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Shunping to include adjusting a deceleration of the mild decelerating in real time according to relative distance and relative speed between two vehicle when D0o2 > D0o2-mild + Dpre2, stopping decelerating, Dpre2 is a preset constant, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling the vehicle based on received information enables the vehicle to operate in a safe and reliable manner (Ike, Paragraphs 0002 and 0015).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667