DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 3/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 have been amended. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/20226 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments directed toward rejections under 35 USC §101:
Applicant asserts “claim 1 as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application” in pages 10-11 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In support of the assertion, Applicant cites areas of the specification that outline supposed “improvements” in page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks. These reasonings are not present in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, Applicant cites that the additional limitations provide improvements of a computer or software technical field by “enabling warning and braking on different standards depending on a pavement condition of the road and tuning a braking time point according to a road pavement condition…reducing the rate of misrecognition… [reducing] the risk of erroneous control of autonomous emergency braking.” Although these are the intended benefits, the claims, as written, do not necessarily provide those benefits. For example, “outputting a warning and braking command” is broadly recited and is considered transmission of data. The limitation does not necessarily recite that a vehicle is being controlled to brake. Examiner suggest positively reciting that the braking command causes the vehicle to be braked according to Applicant’s asserted benefits.
Applicant further asserts “claim 1 does not ‘recite’ any abstract idea…” in page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous Office Action, classifying an object, selecting a target, making a prediction, calculating a time to collision, and comparing the calculated time to collision to a reference are all actions that can be performed mentally.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward the rejections under 35 USC §101 are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained as outlined below.
Arguments directed toward rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103:
Applicant asserts “Kim does not disclose… ‘receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking…’” and that “Kim does not disclose that the ‘object detection result for the target zone’ is ‘for autonomous emergency braking’” in page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses an automated control of a driving vehicle in response to a danger zone including an automated braking (see at least [0074]) wherein the driving control for the vehicle determines risk of the danger zone based on the object detection result and a time to collision (see at least [0075]).
Applicant further asserts “Kim does not disclose ‘receiving information about a driving road type…’” in pages 12-13 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Kim discloses obtaining road map information which includes geometric information corresponding to information about a type of the road and zones of the road (see at least [0060]).
Applicant further asserts “in Kim, there is no disclosure of ‘classifying the control target according to the driving road type of the map data’” in page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Kim discloses that a danger zone (road type or zone type) is an area in which attention is warranted while driving based on a target map object such as a crosswalk (see at least [0063]-[0064]). Wherein the risk level of the danger zone and object is based on object detection result and other factors such as the type of object. For example, when the danger zone is classified as a crosswalk, the risk level (which can be of the object such as human) is determined to be higher (see at least [0076]). Kim further discloses that object detection is performed to determine object detection corresponding to the danger area such as detecting a pedestrian (see at least [0070]-[0071]). Therefore, Kim teaches determining risk level of an object, such as a pedestrian, based on the identified danger zone, such as a crosswalk, which reads on Applicant’s limitation.
Applicant’s arguments directed toward rejections under 35 USC §103 are the same as those directed toward claim 1 due to dependency. Therefore, the arguments directed toward rejections under 35 USC §103 are also unpersuasive for similar reasons.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103 are maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the specification, Applicant has submitted a new abstract to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §101 are maintained as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §102 and 103 are maintained as outlined below.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-17 are directed to a method and recites at least one step. Therefore, claims 1-17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
An autonomous emergency braking method based on map data, wherein
a controller receives information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data from a sensor mounted in a vehicle, receiving information about a driving road type through map data, classifying the control target according to the driving road type of the map data,
selecting an autonomous emergency braking control target,
performing a collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target based on time to collision,
calculating a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed, comparing the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, and when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision outputting a warning and braking command.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, with the data that has been gathered, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a detected vehicle is considered a high or low risk of collision with own vehicle. Furthermore, with the data given, a time to collision can be calculated and the calculated TTC can be compared with a preset TTC to determine whether the risk is higher or lower than the preset TTC.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An autonomous emergency braking method comprising, by a controller
receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data from a sensor mounted in a vehicle, receiving information about a real-time driving road type through map data, classifying the control target according to the driving road type of the map data,
selecting an autonomous emergency braking control target,
performing a collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target based on time to collision,
calculating a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed, comparing the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, and when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision outputting a warning and braking command.
The recitation of “controller,” “sensor,” and “vehicle” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim and merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment. The limitation “outputting a warning and braking command” fails to positively recite an action that causes the vehicle to do something with the information that is determined and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An autonomous emergency braking method comprising, by a controller
receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data from a sensor mounted in a vehicle, receiving information about a real-time driving road type through map data, classifying the control target according to the driving road type of the map data,
selecting an autonomous emergency braking control target,
performing a collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target based on time to collision,
calculating a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed, comparing the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, and when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision outputting a warning and braking command.
The newly underlined additional limitations “receives information…” and “receives real-time driving road type information” are equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of “issues a warning and braking command” can also be determined to be equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has also been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment, insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding claim 10, the limitation of “perform autonomous emergency braking control target selection” is also considered an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill would be able to look at the other vehicles and obstacles in an environment and select the obstacle that the vehicle has the highest likelihood to collide with. Furthermore, the limitation to “alleviate data filtering” is also provided at a high level of generality and is considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Independent claim 14 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding claim 14, the limitation of “perform autonomous emergency braking control target selection” is also considered an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill would be able to look at the other vehicles and obstacles in an environment and select the obstacle that the vehicle has the highest likelihood to collide with. Furthermore, the limitation to “strengthens data filtering” is also provided at a high level of generality and is considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 2, 6, and 8 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. No other technology or action has been recited in claims 2, 6, and 8 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 6, and 8 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 3, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “autonomous emergency braking control target selection” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a perceived vehicle is of high, medium, or low risk of collision and would further be able to select a vehicle out of a plurality of perceived vehicles that the host vehicle would need to avoid such as a vehicle right in front of the host vehicle. The additional element “filters data of the control target” is provided at a high level of generality and is considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 4, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “autonomous emergency braking control target selection” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a perceived vehicle is of high, medium, or low risk of collision and would further be able to select a vehicle out of a plurality of perceived vehicles that the host vehicle would need to avoid such as a vehicle right in front of the host vehicle. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 5, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “autonomous emergency braking control target selection” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a perceived vehicle is of high, medium, or low risk of collision and would further be able to select a vehicle out of a plurality of perceived vehicles that the host vehicle would need to avoid such as a vehicle right in front of the host vehicle. The additional element “strengthens data filtering…” is provided at a high level of generality and is considered merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 7, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value F…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, in an area where vehicles tend to go faster, a collision could be more dangerous. Therefore, a collision could be determined and a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time than in an area where vehicles are going at a slower pace. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 9, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general target” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, if the detected object is a pedestrian, there is a higher risk involved. Therefore, a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time to ensure a collision does not occur and to ensure proper buffer distance between the host vehicle and the pedestrian. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 11, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 10, recites “performs collision prediction…” and “calculates a time to collision… compares the calculated time to collision…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, with the data given, a time to collision can be calculated and the calculated TTC can be compared with a preset TTC to determine whether the risk is higher or lower than the preset TTC. The additional limitation of “issues a warning and braking command” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. No action is positively recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The limitation “issues a warning and braking command” fails to positively recite an action that causes the vehicle to do something with the information that is determined and is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 10.
Claim 12, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 10, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value F…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, in an area where vehicles tend to go faster, a collision could be more dangerous. Therefore, a collision could be determined and a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time than in an area where vehicles are going at a slower pace. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 10.
Claim 13, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 10, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general target” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, if the detected object is a pedestrian, there is a higher risk involved. Therefore, a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time to ensure a collision does not occur and to ensure proper buffer distance between the host vehicle and the pedestrian. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 10.
Claim 15, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 14, recites “performs collision prediction…” and “calculates a time to collision… compares the calculated time to collision …” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, with the data given, a time to collision can be calculated and the calculated TTC can be compared with a preset TTC to determine whether the risk is higher or lower than the preset TTC. The additional limitation of “issues a warning and braking command” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to also integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. No action is positively recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The limitation “issues a warning and braking command” fails to positively recite an action that causes the vehicle to do something with the information that is determined and is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 14.
Claim 15, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 14, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, in an area where vehicles tend to go faster, a collision could be more dangerous. Therefore, a collision could be determined and a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time than in an area where vehicles are going at a slower pace. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 14.
Claim 16, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 14, recites “sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general target” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, if the detected object is a pedestrian, there is a higher risk involved. Therefore, a warning could be determined to be given at an earlier time to ensure a collision does not occur and to ensure proper buffer distance between the host vehicle and the pedestrian. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0211778 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses:
An autonomous emergency braking method comprising, by a controller (automated braking for a danger zone, see at least [0074]; processor or computer may be implemented by a controller, see at least [0096])
receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data (obtaining image of target zone and obtaining object detection result for target zone, see at least [0023]) from a sensor mounted in a vehicle (image captured by image sensor of vehicle, see at least [0022]), receiving information about a driving road type through map data, (road map information includes geometric information of the road including a type of road and information of zones along a road, see at least [0060]), classifying the control target according to the driving road type of the map data (danger zone is area based on target map object such as crosswalk, see at least [0063]-[0064]; object detection corresponding to the danger area such as pedestrian, see at least [0070]-[0071]; determines a risk level of the object based on object detection result and danger zone, see at least [0075]; risk level can be higher if classified as a crosswalk, see at least [0076]),
selecting an autonomous emergency braking control target (determining risk level of object based on object detection in danger zone, see at least [0075]) ,
performing a collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target based on time to collision (determining an estimated collision time between vehicle and an object, see at least [0075]),
calculating a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed (time to collision is calculated using distance between vehicle and object and relative speed/acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle, see at least [0075]), comparing the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, and when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision (if the TTC of detected object and vehicle is equal to or less than a threshold value, risk level is determined as level 3, see at least [0076]), and outputting a warning and braking command (when risk level is determined as level 3, a visual or auditory notification is activated and a vehicle device control function may be activated to reduce driving speed, see at least [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller classifies the control target into a general target, a priority target, and a lower possibility target according to the driving road type (objects in some danger zones may be given higher risk than objects in other danger zones, see at least [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the elements above and further discloses:
when the control target is the general target (identifying an area in an image that corresponds to the target zone, see at least [0010]), the controller filters data of the control target and autonomous emergency braking control target selection (identifying at least one object that may be determined as a risk factor on the predicted route based on the road map information, see at least [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the elements above and further discloses:
when the control target is the lower possibility target (vehicle 330, see at least Fig. 3B), the controller strengthens data filtering of the control target (object detection is performed in area for which object detection is known to be relevant and not performed for third area 313 and vehicle 330 may not be detected, see at least [0072]; pixels not belonging to target are flattened, see at least [0071]) and performs autonomous emergency braking control target selection (object in relevant area is detected and object in not relevant area is not detected, see at least [0072]) *Examiner sets forth vehicle 330 is not “selected”
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses:
An autonomous emergency braking method comprising, by a controller (automated braking for a danger zone, see at least [0074]; processor or computer may be implemented by a controller, see at least [0096])
receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data (obtaining image of target zone and obtaining object detection result for target zone, see at least [0023]) from a sensor mounted in a vehicle (image captured by image sensor of vehicle, see at least [0022]), receiving information about a real-time driving road type through map data (road map information includes geometric information of the road including a type of road and information of zones along a road, see at least [0060]), classifying the control target into a general target, a priority target, and a lower possibility target according to the driving road type (danger zone is area based on target map object such as crosswalk, see at least [0063]-[0064]; object detection corresponding to the danger area such as pedestrian, see at least [0070]-[0071]; determines a risk level of the object based on object detection result and danger zone, see at least [0075]; risk level can be higher if classified as a crosswalk, see at least [0076]), and
when the control target is the lower possibility target (vehicle 330, see at least Fig. 3B), strengthening data filtering of the control target (object detection is performed in area for which object detection is known to be relevant and not performed for third area 313 and vehicle 330 may not be detected, see at least [0072]; pixels not belonging to target are flattened, see at least [0071]) and performing autonomous emergency braking control target selection (object in relevant area is detected and object in not relevant area is not detected, see at least [0072]) *Examiner sets forth vehicle 330 is not “selected”
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the elements above and further discloses:
the controller performs a collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data based on time to collision, calculates a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed (time to collision is calculated using distance between vehicle and object and relative speed/acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle, see at least [0075]), compares the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, determines a risk when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision (if the TTC of detected object and vehicle is equal to or less than a threshold value, risk level is determined as level 3, see at least [0076]), and issues a warning and braking command (when risk level is determined as level 3, a visual or auditory notification is activated and a vehicle device control function may be activated to reduce driving speed, see at least [0078]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0108808 A1; hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the elements above but does not explicitly disclose:
alleviates data filtering
However, Zhou teaches:
when the control target is the priority target (determine whether priority level meets a threshold, see at least [0046] and Fig. 7), the controller alleviates data filtering of the control target and performs autonomous emergency braking control target selection (high priority levels with high confidence values would be flagged to allow for emergency braking, see at last [0046]) *Examiner sets forth that if emergency braking is already flagged, no “filtering” is done
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the object detection disclosed by Kim by adding the priority level for a flag taught by Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid collision (see [0045]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lv et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0319323 A1; hereinafter Lv).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the elements above but does not explicitly disclose:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data
However, Lv teaches:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data (TTC is matched to constructed road risk classification and risk level of road section is determined, see at least [0057]-[0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim by adding the road risk classification taught by Lv with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for identifying road risk based on a networked vehicle-mounted ADAS” (see [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Lv teaches the elements above and Kim further discloses:
when the driving road is the general road, the controller classifies the selected autonomous emergency braking control target into a priority target and a general target (determining a risk level of the object based on object detection result, see at least [0075], some objects in some danger zones may be given higher risk than other objects, see at least [0076])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lv as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Hoetzer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0263395 A1; hereinafter Hoetzer).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kim and Lv teaches the elements above but does not teach:
when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision
However, Hoetzer teaches:
when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision (at locations at which driving situations have an elevated collision risk, threshold values are lowered such that a warning of danger or emergency braking may be prepared or triggered earlier, see at least [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim and the road risk classification taught by Lv by adding the earlier braking taught by Hoetzer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to adaptively adjust the driver warning, as well as the preparation of the vehicle for the dangerous position” (see [0029]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lv as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Oh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0394778 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim and Lv teaches the elements above but does not teach:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision.
However, Oh teaches:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision (when pedestrian is positioned in dangerous are to enter road from sidewalk, vehicle controller may more rapidly recognize pedestrian and time point to brake becomes earlier, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim and the road risk classification taught by Lv by adding the earlier braking taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent collision with a pedestrian in front of the host vehicle (see [0057]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses:
An autonomous emergency braking method comprising, by a controller (automated braking for a danger zone, see at least [0074]; processor or computer may be implemented by a controller, see at least [0096])
receiving information of a control target for autonomous emergency braking through sensor data (obtaining image of target zone and obtaining object detection result for target zone, see at least [0023]) from a sensor mounted in a vehicle (image captured by image sensor of vehicle, see at least [0022]), receiving information about a real-time driving road type through map data (road map information includes geometric information of the road including a type of road and information of zones along a road, see at least [0060]), and classifying the control target into a general target, a priority target, and a lower possibility target according to the driving road type (danger zone is area based on target map object such as crosswalk, see at least [0063]-[0064]; object detection corresponding to the danger area such as pedestrian, see at least [0070]-[0071]; determines a risk level of the object based on object detection result and danger zone, see at least [0075]; risk level can be higher if classified as a crosswalk, see at least [0076]))
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
alleviating data filtering of the control target
However, Zhou teaches:
when the control target is the priority target (determine whether priority level meets a threshold, see at least [0046] and Fig. 7), alleviating data filtering of the control target and performing autonomous emergency braking control target selection (high priority levels with high confidence values would be flagged to allow for emergency braking, see at last [0046]) *Examiner sets forth that if emergency braking is already flagged, no “filtering” is done
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the object detection disclosed by Kim by adding the priority level for a flag taught by Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid collision (see [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kim and Zhou teaches the elements above and Kim further discloses:
the controller performs collision prediction on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target based on time to collision, calculates a time to collision with a target through dynamic information including a relative distance to the selected autonomous emergency braking control target and a relative speed (time to collision is calculated using distance between vehicle and object and relative speed/acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle, see at least [0075]), and compares the calculated time to collision with the target with a preset risk determination reference time to collision, and when the time to collision with the target is smaller than the risk determination reference time to collision, the controller determines it as a risk and issues a warning and braking command (if the TTC of detected object and vehicle is equal to or less than a threshold value, risk level is determined as level 3, see at least [0076]; when risk level is determined as level 3, a visual or auditory notification is activated and a vehicle device control function may be activated to reduce driving speed, see at least [0078]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhou as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Lv and Hoetzer.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim and Zhou teaches the elements above but does no teach:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data, and when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision.
However, Lv teaches:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data (TTC is matched to constructed road risk classification and risk level of road section is determined, see at least [0057]-[0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim and the priority level for a flag taught by Zhou by adding the road risk classification taught by Lv with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for identifying road risk based on a networked vehicle-mounted ADAS” (see [0002]).
Furthermore, Hoetzer teaches:
when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision (at locations at which driving situations have an elevated collision risk, threshold values are lowered such that a warning of danger or emergency braking may be prepared or triggered earlier, see at least [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim, the priority level for a flag taught by Zhou, and the road risk classification taught by Lv by adding the earlier braking taught by Hoetzer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to adaptively adjust the driver warning, as well as the preparation of the vehicle for the dangerous position” (see [0029]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zhou, Lv, and Hoetzer as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kim, Zhou, Lv, and Hoetzer teaches the elements above and Kim further discloses:
when the driving road is a general road, the controller classifies the selected autonomous emergency braking control target into a priority target and a general target (determining a risk level of the object based on object detection result, see at least [0075], some objects in some danger zones may be given higher risk than other objects, see at least [0076])
Kim does not disclose:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets the warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision.
However, Oh teaches:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets the warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision) (when pedestrian is positioned in dangerous are to enter road from sidewalk, vehicle controller may more rapidly recognize pedestrian and time point to brake becomes earlier, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim, the priority level for a flag taught by Zhou, the road risk classification taught by Lv, and the earlier braking taught by Hoetzer by adding the earlier braking taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent collision with a pedestrian in front of the host vehicle (see [0057]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lv and Hoetzer.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the elements above but does not disclose:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data, and when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision.
However, Lv teaches:
the controller classifies the driving road into a dangerous road and a general road according to the risk determination reference time to collision based on the selected autonomous emergency braking control target data (TTC is matched to constructed road risk classification and risk level of road section is determined, see at least [0057]-[0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim by adding the road risk classification taught by Lv with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for identifying road risk based on a networked vehicle-mounted ADAS” (see [0002]).
Furthermore, Hoetzer teaches:
when the driving road is the dangerous road, the controller sets a warning time point earlier than that of the general road by adding a tuning value to the risk determination reference time to collision (at locations at which driving situations have an elevated collision risk, threshold values are lowered such that a warning of danger or emergency braking may be prepared or triggered earlier, see at least [0030])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim and the road risk classification taught by Lv by adding the earlier braking taught by Hoetzer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to adaptively adjust the driver warning, as well as the preparation of the vehicle for the dangerous position” (see [0029]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lv and Hoetzer as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Oh.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the elements above and further discloses:
when the driving road is a general road, the controller classifies the selected autonomous emergency braking control target into the priority target and the general target (determining a risk level of the object based on object detection result, see at least [0075], some objects in some danger zones may be given higher risk than other objects, see at least [0076]),
Kim does not disclose:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets the warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision.
However, Oh teaches:
when the selected autonomous emergency braking control target is the priority target, the controller sets the warning time point earlier than that of the general target by adding a tuning value F to the risk determination reference time to collision (when pedestrian is positioned in dangerous are to enter road from sidewalk, vehicle controller may more rapidly recognize pedestrian and time point to brake becomes earlier, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time to collision threshold disclosed by Kim, the road risk classification taught by Lv, and the earlier braking taught by Hoetzer by adding the earlier braking taught by Oh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent collision with a pedestrian in front of the host vehicle (see [0057]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662