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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 and 14 are pending.
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 14 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f): Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the claim interpretation under 112(f). Claim interpretation under 112(f) is maintained as detailed below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection with respect to claim 12, but raises a new 112(b) issue with respect to claim 14 that will be outlined in this action below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the rejections of record. The 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1, 11, and 14 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, limitations pertaining to “in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle” which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “In this Amendment, the Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include the elements:
in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of:
activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or
activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
The Applicant has amended independent claims 11 and 14 to include similar elements. The Applicant respectfully notes that the cited portions of David, Zecha, Hahne, Schnetter, and Lee do not teach this feature. For at least this reason, amended independent claims 1, 11, and 14, and any claim that depends on claim 1 or 11, are patentable over the combinations of David, Zecha, Hahne, Schnetter, and Lee as contemplated by the Examiner. The Applicant requests reconsideration.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as with respect to the Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims 1, 11, and 14, the arguments have been considered but are moot, as these are directed towards the current mapping of claims and/or “cited portions of David, Zecha, Hahne, Schnetter, and Lee” and not the references as a whole with respect to the newly amended limitations which are presented in this action below. Therefore, the 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 17) “decelerate the motor or vehicle” should read “decelerate the motor
Claim 11 (line 17) “decelerate the motor or vehicle” should read “decelerate the motor
Claim 14 (line 18) “decelerate the motor or vehicle” should read “decelerate the motor
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle” in claim 11, processing device configured to: receive an indication of a probable trajectory of the mobile device; determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; and determine a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle claim 11, “device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle” in claim 14, “processing device configured to: receive an indication of a probable trajectory of the mobile device; determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; and determine a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle” in claim 14, “device for determining the [[a]] probable trajectory of the mobile device” in claim 14, and “processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, device or processing device may be an integrated circuit, a programmable logic chip or a programmable microcomputer (see at least [0020]-[0021] from Applicant’s specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation "the probable trajectory of the mobile device" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a probable trajectory of the mobile device in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US2011/0210866A1) in view of Zecha (DE102009057978A1), hereinafter David and Zecha respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) David teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling a motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle (see at least [0078] “An ad-hoc-connection 26 is established between the vehicle 1 and the pedestrian 3 or his cell phone 4. In step 27 a data transfer is initiated between the cell phone 4 of pedestrian 3 and the vehicle.”); determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle (see at least [0073] “Parallel in step 17 the processing unit 12 determines an estimated trajectory 5 of the vehicle 1.”); determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the mobile device (see at least [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position.” also see at least Fig.2); comparing, with the processor, the probable trajectories on the basis of the relative position (see at least [0043] “The invention also suggests analyzing estimated future trajectories of the traffic participant and the vehicle by determining the distance of the future trajectories at a given point in future time.”); determining, with the processor, a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person based on the comparing (see at least [0043] “The simulated distance might be seen as a good estimation building the basis for an analysis of the likelihood of a collision. The method compares the distance of the trajectories or the future positions of the traffic participant and the vehicle with a safety distance indicating a possible future collision in case of the distance becoming smaller than the safety distance.”); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision (see at least [0052] “In case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance, an action designated for avoiding a possible future collision is automatically triggered.”), wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle (see at least [0052] “ It is also possible that the action is an automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system.”); or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner also interprets that in response to a determination of the possible collision is encompassed at least by in case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance and a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system.
David does not explicitly teach but suggests determining, with a processor, a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0070] “At a future point in time t3 with a possible collision these trajectories 5, 6 have a minimal distance 7 corresponding to the absolute value of the difference of the position vectors y(t3)-x(t3).”).
Zecha more explicitly teaches determining, with a processor, a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0017] “the computing unit determines the positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle” also see at least [0010] and [0016]); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle (see at least [0045] “If an intersection of the predicted trajectories 501, 502 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz with a relative distance 604 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz is predicted at a predefined distance threshold, for example at a preceding time t4, this is considered predicted to be an imminent collision of the two vehicles Fm, Fz. In such cases, wherein an imminent collision is predicted…the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as. For example. active steering or braking of the measuring vehicle Fm.”).
Examiner interprets that relative position is encompassed at least by positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle. Examiner also interprets that longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, braking of the measuring vehicle and a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle is encompassed at least by the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, active steering the measuring vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of David of a computer-implemented method for controlling a motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the mobile device; comparing, with the processor, the probable trajectories on the basis of the relative position; determining, with the processor, a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person based on the comparing; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle and the suggested teaching of David of determining, with a processor, a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle with the more explicitly teaching of determining, with a processor, a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle found in Zecha. One could combine the teachings in order to have a computer-implemented method for controlling a motor vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle; determining, with a processor, a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; determining, with the processor, a probable trajectory of the mobile device; comparing, with the processor, the probable trajectories on the basis of the relative position; and determining, with the processor, a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person based on the comparing; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically controlling the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein automatically controlling the motor vehicle comprises at least one of: activating, with the processor, a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activating, with the processor, a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 2, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David suggests wherein the relative position is determined by way of the wireless connection (see at least [0071] “In this method the cell phone 4 of the pedestrian 3 sends a signal 8 comprising single positions 9, 10, i.e. position vectors y(t1) and y(t2). In a step 11 the signal 8 is received by a processing unit 12, so that also the positions 9, 10 are received and stored.” also see at least [0082] “For a communication between the vehicle 1 and the cell phone 4 cellular technologies as GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS and HSDPA might be used. Furthermore, future new products as LIE and NGMN might also be used. Another option used for the communication are ad-hoc-networks as e.g. WLAN, Blue Tooth, WiMax.”).
Zecha more explicitly teaches wherein the relative position is determined by way of the wireless connection (see at least [0053] “Thus, the receiving antenna 2122 m the left vehicle Side region receives the response signals of the target vehicle Fz located in the left vehicle surroundings 420 with a measurable higher signal level than all the other three receiving antennas 2121, 2123, 2124. The computing unit 220 compares the Signal levels of the received Signals of all four receiving antennas 2121, 2122, 2123, 2124 and thus determines roughly the azimuth angle of the target vehicle Fz relative to the longitudinal axis of the measuring vehicle Fm. In the further step, the computing unit 220 combines the azimuth angles with the distance values and driving stretch values of the two vehicles Fm, Fz and thus receives the exact relative positions of the target vehicle Fz to the measuring vehicle Fm.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of David of wherein the relative position is determined by way of the wireless connection with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Zecha. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the relative position is determined by way of the wireless connection with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 3, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 2 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein a further wireless connection is made between the motor vehicle and the mobile device (see at least [0078] “An ad-hoc-connection 26 is established between the vehicle 1 and the pedestrian 3 or his cell phone 4. In step 27 a data transfer is initiated between the cell phone 4 of pedestrian 3 and the vehicle.” and [0082] “For a communication between the vehicle 1 and the cell phone 4 cellular technologies as GSM, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS and HSDPA might be used. Furthermore, future new products as LIE and NGMN might also be used. Another option used for the communication are ad-hoc-networks as e.g. WLAN, Blue Tooth, WiMax.”). David does not explicitly teach but suggests the relative position is determined by way of the further wireless connection (see at least [0071] “In this method the cell phone 4 of the pedestrian 3 sends a signal 8 comprising single positions 9, 10, i.e. position vectors y(t1) and y(t2). In a step 11 the signal 8 is received by a processing unit 12, so that also the positions 9, 10 are received and stored.” and [0017] “It is possible that the cell phone (in some cases also without modifications of the cell phone itself) transmits a signal indicating a position of the traffic participant.” also see at least [0082]).
Zecha more explicitly the relative position is determined by way of the further wireless connection (see at least [0031] “A first line is used to transmit signals between the road users. that is to say between the measurement and target vehicles if the target vehicles are also equipped with the device according to the invention. they can also conversely perform prediction as a measuring vehicle During the signal transmission, traffic participant-related and/or traffic participant dynamics-related data are transmitted between the road users...The current movements of the road users are determined on the basis of the transmitted and own traffic participant-related and/or traffic participant dynamics-related data. The determination of the distances and movements is carried out iteratively at predetermined time intervals. From the current and past radial distances between the road users and the current and past movements of the road users determined in at least two successive points in time, the positions and/or movements of the road users relative to one another are iteratively predicted at one or more future points in time.”).
Examiner interprets that relative position is encompassed at least by the positions and/or movements of the road users relative to one another and wireless connection is encompassed at least by first line and/or signal transmission.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of David of the relative position is determined by way of the further wireless connection with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Zecha. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein a further wireless connection is made between the motor vehicle and the mobile device; and the relative position is determined by way of the further wireless connection with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 4, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein the probable trajectory of the motor vehicle is determined on the basis of a direction of travel, a speed of travel, an acceleration, a course of a road being traveled on or a planned route (see at least [0073] “Parallel in step 17 the processing unit 12 determines an estimated trajectory 5 of the vehicle 1. For a determination of the estimated trajectory 5 of the vehicle 1, there are a lot of different options: it is possible that also for the estimated trajectory 5 a past position vectorx(t1) is considered for calculating a velocity and/or a direction of the movement of the vehicle 1. However, also information available in the vehicle, e.g. information available over the CAN bus system, can be considered. It is also possible that in step 17 further information 18 is considered for an estimation of the trajectory 5. The information 18 might include information related with the operating state of the vehicle, in particular the actuation of a blinker indicating a future curvature of the trajectory 5, information of a map system indicating a future curve drive, information from the route planning of a navigation system, e.g. indicating the further route at a crossroad.”).
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner also interprets that probable trajectory of the motor vehicle is encompassed at least by estimation of the trajectory 5 and a direction of travel, a speed of travel, an acceleration, a course of a road being traveled on or a planned route is encompassed at least by information 18.
Regarding claim 5, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein the probable trajectory of the mobile device is determined on the basis of a direction of movement, a speed of movement, an acceleration, a course of a path being used by the person or a planned route (see at least [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position. For the future movement, the characteristic measure of the movement 14 is extrapolated, which might also be done under consideration of a deceleration or acceleration or a change of the direction.” also see at least [0072] “The characteristic measure of the movement 14 might be a kind of vector, whereas it is also possible that the characteristic measure of the movement 14 both includes the absolute value of a velocity of the pedestrian 3 as well as a direction of the movement of the pedestrian 3, in particular with an additional characteristic measure describing a future change of the velocity and/or the direction.”).
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner also interprets that probable trajectory of the mobile device is encompassed at least by estimated trajectory 6 and a direction of movement, a speed of movement, an acceleration, a course of a path being used by the person or a planned route is encompassed at least by characteristic measure of the movement 14.
Regarding claim 7, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein a probability of an imminent collision is determined (see at least [0074] “According to a comparison of the minimum distance 7, a collision indicator 22 is transferred to step 21....However, it is also possible that the collision indicator 22 includes the probability or the estimate of the likelihood of a collision, e.g. on a scale from 1 to 10.”); and an indication of the probability is provided aboard the motor vehicle (see at least [0074] “ In step 21 an action for avoiding a collision is triggered, wherein the action might be an optical warning, an acoustic warning or a haptic warning as a vibration.” also see at least [0078] “the processing unit 12 is located in the vehicle 1 and Fig.2).
Examiner interprets that probability of an imminent collision is encompassed at least probability or the estimate of the likelihood of a collision.
Regarding claim 9, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein the probable trajectories are compared with one another by the motor vehicle (see at least [0043] “The method compares the distance of the trajectories or the future positions of the traffic participant and the vehicle with a safety distance indicating a possible future collision in case of the distance becoming smaller than the safety distance.” and [0018]-[0019] “On the basis of these estimates, the processing unit evaluates the likelihood of a future collision. In the simplest case, the processing unit decides that a likelihood of a future collision is given in case of the distance of the estimated future positions of the vehicle and the traffic participant getting smaller than a safety distance... It is possible that the processing unit is integrated into the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 11, (Currently Amended) David teaches an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle (see at least [0073] “the processing unit 12 determines an estimated trajectory 5 of the vehicle 1.”); an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle (see at least [0078] “An ad-hoc-connection 26 is established between the vehicle 1 and the pedestrian 3 or his cell phone 4. In step 27 a data transfer is initiated between the cell phone 4 of pedestrian 3 and the vehicle.”); and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of a probable trajectory of the mobile device (see at least [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position. For the future movement, the characteristic measure of the movement 14 is extrapolated, which might also be done under consideration of a deceleration or acceleration or a change of the direction. The estimated trajectory 6 builds an input for step 16 performed in the processing unit 12.”); compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position (see at least [0043] “The invention also suggests analyzing estimated future trajectories of the traffic participant and the vehicle by determining the distance of the future trajectories at a given point in future time.”); see at least [0043] “The simulated distance might be seen as a good estimation building the basis for an analysis of the likelihood of a collision. The method compares the distance of the trajectories or the future positions of the traffic participant and the vehicle with a safety distance indicating a possible future collision in case of the distance becoming smaller than the safety distance.”); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision (see at least [0052] “In case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance, an action designated for avoiding a possible future collision is automatically triggered.”), wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle, the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle (see at least [0052] “ It is also possible that the action is an automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system.”); or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle.
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner also interprets that in response to a determination of the possible collision is encompassed at least by in case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance and a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system.
David does not explicitly teach but suggests determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0070] “At a future point in time t3 with a possible collision these trajectories 5, 6 have a minimal distance 7 corresponding to the absolute value of the difference of the position vectors y(t3)-x(t3).”).
Zecha teaches determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0017] “the computing unit determines the positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle” also see at least [0010] and [0016]); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle, the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle (see at least [0045] “If an intersection of the predicted trajectories 501, 502 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz with a relative distance 604 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz is predicted at a predefined distance threshold, for example at a preceding time t4, this is considered predicted to be an imminent collision of the two vehicles Fm, Fz. In such cases, wherein an imminent collision is predicted…the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as. For example. active steering or braking of the measuring vehicle Fm.”).
Examiner interprets that relative position is encompassed at least by positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle. Examiner also interprets that longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, braking of the measuring vehicle and a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle is encompassed at least by the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, active steering the measuring vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of David of an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of a probable trajectory of the mobile device; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; determine a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle, the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle and the suggested teaching of David of determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle with the teaching of determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle, the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle found in Zecha. One could combine the teachings in order to have an apparatus for controlling a motor vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of a probable trajectory of the mobile device; determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 12, (Currently Amended) David teaches a motor vehicle comprising the [[an]] apparatus according to claim 11 (see at least [0018] “Furthermore, in the estimate of a future position known fixed obstacles might be considered. Besides the estimate of the future position of the traffic participant, the processing unit also considers an estimate of a future position of the vehicle. On the basis of these estimates, the processing unit evaluates the likelihood of a future collision. In the simplest case, the processing unit decides that a likelihood of a future collision is given in case of the distance of the estimated future positions of the vehicle and the traffic participant getting smaller than a safety distance. It is possible that the processing unit is integrated into the vehicle or into”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US2011/0210866A1) in view of Zecha (DE102009057978A1) in view of Hahne (US2013/0060400A1) in further view of Schnetter (DE102017114876A1), hereinafter David, Zecha, Hahne, and Schnetter respectively.
Regarding claim 6, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 5 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein an acceleration of the mobile device is taken as a basis for determining a type of motion of the person (see at least [0024] “the sensed acceleration might be used as an indicator for an agility of the traffic participant or the stress level of the traffic participant leading to the assumption that the traffic participant will not move steady or uniformly but will move with changing directions and accelerations with an increased potential of a collision” and [0026] “b) It is also possible to use different accelerations or acceleration components of an acceleration sensor of the cell phone. To name only one example, the invention might consider a vertical component of the acceleration signal for detecting that the traffic participant is sitting down or standing, moving upstairs or downstairs” also see at least [0027]-[0029]).
Examiner interprets that type of motion of the person is encompassed at least by agility of the traffic participant or the stress level of the traffic participant leading to the assumption that the traffic participant will not move steady or uniformly and/or detecting that the traffic participant is sitting down or standing, moving upstairs or downstairs.
David suggests the probable trajectory is determined on the basis of the type of motion (see at least [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position. For the future movement, the characteristic measure of the movement 14 is extrapolated, which might also be done under consideration of a deceleration or acceleration or a change of the direction.” also see at least [0020] and [0043]).
Examiner interprets that probably trajectory is encompassed at least by estimated trajectory 6 and/or future movement.
Hahne more explicitly teaches wherein an acceleration of the mobile device is taken as a basis for determining a type of motion of the person (see at least [0044] “Mobile transceivers can be configured or retrofitted with motion sensors, acceleration sensors, yaw rate sensors and/or magnetic compass sensors etc. with which the mobile transceiver can detect the motion of the carrier. At the same time, the mobile transceiver itself can also optionally have an evaluation device in which the detected motion data are evaluated to determine the type of carrier with the detected motion profile. The mobile transceiver can also have only one storage device in which the detected motion data can be stored so that they can be retrieved. The data on the detected motion profile can then be received by the detection apparatus via its transmitting-receiving device and evaluated in the evaluation device of the detection apparatus and appropriate measures can be taken by the control device. The evaluation device of the detection apparatus can determine with the detected motion data or the detected motion profile of the mobile transceiver whether the present carrier and therefore type of carrier comprises an unprotected person, such as, for example, a pedestrian, or another motor vehicle.” also see at least [0012]).
Examiner interprets that type of motion of the person is encompassed at least by the type of carrier with the detected motion profile.
Schnetter more explicitly teaches the probable trajectory is determined on the basis of the type of motion (see at least [0033] “Thereupon, the bicycle trajectory 28 is predicted by a computing unit associated with the ego vehicle 1. Taking into account the kinematic and psychological movement potential of road users classified as a bicycle.”).
Examiner interprets that probable trajectory is encompassed at least by bicycle trajectory 28 and on the basis of the type of motion is encompassed at least by taking into account the kinematic and psychological movement potential of road users classified as a bicycle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of David of wherein an acceleration of the mobile device is taken as a basis for determining a type of motion of the person and the suggested teaching of David of the probable trajectory is determined on the basis of the type of motion with the more explicit teaching of wherein an acceleration of the mobile device is taken as a basis for determining a type of motion of the person found in Hahne and the more explicit teaching of the probable trajectory is determined on the basis of the type of motion found in Schnetter. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein an acceleration of the mobile device is taken as a basis for determining a type of motion of the person; and the probable trajectory is determined on the basis of the type of motion with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US2011/0210866A1) in view of Zecha (DE102009057978A1) in further view of Schnetter (DE102017114876A1), hereinafter David, Zecha, and Schnetter respectively.
Regarding claim 8, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 7 as detailed above.
David teaches wherein a graphical representation of locations in an environment of the motor vehicle is presented aboard the motor vehicle (see at least [0076] “FIG. 3 shows a possible traffic situation, wherein a vehicle moves along a road with parked vehicles 24, 25 at the road. There is a plurality of pedestrians moving along the roads in different directions with different velocities. In FIG. 3 the velocities are indicated by the length of the shown vectors, whereas the direction of the movement of the pedestrians correlates with the orientation of the vectors. In FIG. 3 only one relevant pedestrian 3 with the related future trajectory 6 is shown. There is a large probability that the trajectory 6 will intersect with trajectory 5 of vehicle 1. Pedestrians systemized as not being of further relevance are denoted with the reference numeral 3'.”); wherein a graphical indication of a specific probability of a location being a collision location is presented at each of the locations (see at least [0078] “the processing unit 12 is located in the vehicle 1. Besides the pedestrian 3 shown in FIG. 3 data is also transferred from other pedestrians 3' denoted in FIG. 2. In the subsequent step 28, the processing unit 12 eliminates signals from pedestrians 3' for which the likelihood of a collision with the vehicle 1 is not given or may be neglected. This type of elimination or filtering bases on data transferred from the pedestrians 3', in particular the distance to the road or the vehicle 1, the velocity and/or the moving direction of the pedestrian 3'. It is also possible that a reaction capability of the pedestrian 3' is considered for this elimination process. The processing unit 12 identifies at least one pedestrian 3 with a relevant likelihood of a collision with the vehicle 1. For this at least one pedestrian 3 an action for avoiding a collision is triggered in step 29.” and [0074] “it is also possible that the collision indicator 22 includes the probability or the estimate of the likelihood of a collision, e.g. on a scale from 1 to 10.”).
Schnetter more explicitly teaches wherein a graphical representation of locations in an environment of the motor vehicle is presented aboard the motor vehicle (see at least [0039] “Of course, it would be readily possible to always display all bicycles in the perimeter or even all other road users In this case, however, the driver of the ego vehicle 1 would probably lose the overview and the driver assistance system would be perceived as inappropriate. Comfort and acceptance would be clear. Therefore, it has long been recognized generally that only information requiring attention due to its urgency should be displayed. The information output explained in the example thus also differs from a classical optical and/or acoustic warning. It is conceivable to output the information via a head-up display at the right front pane edge or via a display in the right A column. If the driver of the ego vehicle 1 does not have to drive to the right ran in order to park, he will not perceive the information once. If it is in parking space search and looks in the direction of the right edge of the roadway, it is conscious that the bicycle 2 is located in a potential hazard area.”); wherein a graphical indication of a specific probability of a location being a collision location is presented at each of the locations (see at least [0034]-[0035] “For this purpose, three location probability ranges (AWB) are determined along the ego vehicle trajectory 27...The location probability range indicates with a certain probability where the road user is located at the respective point in time... [0035] “The location probability ranges for the bicycle (FR-AWB 24, FR-AWB 25, FR-AWB 26 for the points in time t1. t2, t3) are determined analogously. also see at least Fig. 2a-2c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of David of wherein a graphical representation of locations in an environment of the motor vehicle is presented aboard the motor vehicle; wherein a graphical indication of a specific probability of a location being a collision location is presented at each of the locations with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Schnetter. One could combine the teaching in order to have a method wherein a graphical representation of locations in an environment of the motor vehicle is presented aboard the motor vehicle; wherein a graphical indication of a specific probability of a location being a collision location is presented at each of the locations with a reason expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 10, (Original) the combination of David and Zecha teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
David suggests wherein a possible collision is not determined when there is a protective obstacle between the motor vehicle and the mobile device (see at least [0076]-[0077] “FIG. 3 shows a possible traffic situation, wherein a vehicle moves along a road with parked vehicles 24, 25 at the road...In FIG. 3 only one relevant pedestrian 3 with the related future trajectory 6 is shown. There is a large probability that the trajectory 6 will intersect with trajectory 5 of vehicle 1... The pedestrian 3 intends to cross the road between the two parked vehicles 24, 25 so that the pedestrian 3 is covered by vehicle 24 for the driver of vehicle 1 approaching vehicles 24, 25.” also see at least [0058]).
Schnetter teaches wherein a possible collision is not determined when there is a protective obstacle between the motor vehicle and the mobile device (see at least [0036]-[0037] “The aim of the method according to the invention is to improve safety in road traffic and at the same time to increase comfort and acceptance of safety or driver assistance systems based thereon. The scene shown in FIG. 1 would be uncritical in known methods and unlike in the method according to the invention. no indication or warning would take place. In the scene shown, the driver of the ego vehicle 1 cannot see the bicycle 2 directly because the transporter 3 is in the line of sight...In order to nevertheless enable an appropriate information and warning cascade, all location probability regions of the ego vehicle 1 and of the bicycle 2 are now compared with one another More precisely, the location probability regions are compared with one another at the same time interval in each case...The criticality of the situation or the risk of collision is thus assigned to stage 3, for example. This stage is assigned as a measure merely to the indication of the driver of the ego vehicle 1 (or the driver of the bicycle 2) for the presence of the further road user. i.e. of the bicycle 2 (or of the ego vehicle 1) (reference stage). This corresponds to the basic assumption that the further the possible collision is in the future, the tower the manifestation of a measure is to fail. Background is the fact that interventions can be made smaller, the more time is available for their effect.” also see at least [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of David of wherein a possible collision is not determined when there is a protective obstacle between the motor vehicle and the mobile device with the teaching of wherein a possible collision is not determined when there is a protective obstacle between the motor vehicle and the mobile device found in Schnetter. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein a possible collision is not determined when there is a protective obstacle between the motor vehicle and the mobile device with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US2011/0210866A1) in view of Zecha (DE102009057978A1) in view of Hahne (US2013/0060400A1) in further view of Lee et al. (US2018/0342154A1), hereinafter David, Zecha, Hahne, and Lee respectively.
Regarding claim 14, (Currently Amended) David teaches a system, comprising: a motor vehicle comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle (see at least [0073] “the processing unit 12 determines an estimated trajectory 5 of the vehicle 1.” and [0019] “It is possible that the processing unit is integrated into the vehicle”); an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle (see at least [0078] “An ad-hoc-connection 26 is established between the vehicle 1 and the pedestrian 3 or his cell phone 4. In step 27 a data transfer is initiated between the cell phone 4 of pedestrian 3 and the vehicle.”); and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of the [[a]] probable trajectory of the mobile device (see at least [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position. For the future movement, the characteristic measure of the movement 14 is extrapolated, which might also be done under consideration of a deceleration or acceleration or a change of the direction. The estimated trajectory 6 builds an input for step 16 performed in the processing unit 12.”); compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position (see at least [0043] “The invention also suggests analyzing estimated future trajectories of the traffic participant and the vehicle by determining the distance of the future trajectories at a given point in future time.”); see at least [0043] “The simulated distance might be seen as a good estimation building the basis for an analysis of the likelihood of a collision. The method compares the distance of the trajectories or the future positions of the traffic participant and the vehicle with a safety distance indicating a possible future collision in case of the distance becoming smaller than the safety distance.”); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision (see at least [0052] “In case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance, an action designated for avoiding a possible future collision is automatically triggered.”), wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle (see at least [0052] “ It is also possible that the action is an automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system.”); or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle; and the [[a]] mobile device comprising: a device for determining the [[a]] probable trajectory of the mobile device (see at least [0019] “It is possible that the processing unit is integrated into the vehicle or into a cell phone of the traffic participant.” and [0073] “In a subsequent step 15 from the characteristic measure of the movement 14 an estimated trajectory 6 is determined by extrapolation of the position y(t2) to a future position. For the future movement, the characteristic measure of the movement 14 is extrapolated, which might also be done under consideration of a deceleration or acceleration or a change of the direction. The estimated trajectory 6 builds an input for step 16 performed in the processing unit 12.”); an interface for making a wireless connection to the [[a]] motor vehicle (see at least [0078] “An ad-hoc-connection 26 is established between the vehicle 1 and the pedestrian 3 or his cell phone 4. In step 27 a data transfer is initiated between the cell phone 4 of pedestrian 3 and the vehicle.” also see at least [0082]); and a processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle (see at least [0073] “The estimated trajectory 6 builds an input for step 16 performed in the processing unit 12.” also see at least [0018]-[0019]).
Examiner interprets that the claim is written in the alternative and therefore only one of the limitations needs to be addressed. Examiner also interprets that in response to a determination of the possible collision is encompassed at least by in case of detecting that the future positions have a distance smaller than the safety distance and a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by automatic brake application or the actuation of a brake assisting system, mobile device is encompassed at least by cell phone (cell phone 4), device and/or processing device is encompassed at least by processing unit, and the probable trajectory of the mobile device is encompassed at least by estimated trajectory 6.
David suggests determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0070] “At a future point in time t3 with a possible collision these trajectories 5, 6 have a minimal distance 7 corresponding to the absolute value of the difference of the position vectors y(t3)-x(t3).”).
Zecha more explicitly teaches determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle (see at least [0017] “the computing unit determines the positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle” also see at least [0010] and [0016]); and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle (see at least [0045] “If an intersection of the predicted trajectories 501, 502 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz with a relative distance 604 of the two vehicles Fm, Fz is predicted at a predefined distance threshold, for example at a preceding time t4, this is considered predicted to be an imminent collision of the two vehicles Fm, Fz. In such cases, wherein an imminent collision is predicted…the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as. For example. active steering or braking of the measuring vehicle Fm.”).
Examiner interprets that relative position is encompassed at least by positions of the target vehicle relative to the measuring vehicle. Examiner also interprets that longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle is encompassed at least by computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, braking of the measuring vehicle and a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle is encompassed at least by the computing unit 220 also sends a control signal to the vehicle-internal driving dynamics control unit 120 and prompts them to carry out suitable measures such as, for example, active steering the measuring vehicle.
Hahne more explicitly teaches an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle (see at least [0012] “the detection apparatus is configured to communicate via the radio interface with a laptop, with a mobile phone, with a smart phone, with a PDA, and/or with a navigation system”) and an interface for making a wireless connection to the [[a]] motor vehicle (see at least [0020] “Furthermore, present-day mobile transceivers are increasingly fitted with a radio interface e.g., WLAN and can thus communicate with other radio-capable or WLAN capable devices. Such mobile devices comprise transmitting/receiving devices with a radio interface.”).
Lee more explicitly teaches a processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle (see at least [0024] “the first mobile device 110 of the first VRU 10 also periodically broadcasts PSM packets through the communication module 114 to the vehicle VH and other near VRUs, wherein the PSM packets contain the ID, the latitude, the longitude, the speed, the direction and the route of the first mobile device 110.”).
Examiner interprets that processing device is encompassed at least by communication module and probable trajectory is encompassed at least by the route of the first mobile device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of David of a system, comprising: a motor vehicle comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of the probable trajectory of the mobile device; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; determine a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle; and the mobile device comprising: a device for determining the probable trajectory of the mobile device; an interface for making a wireless connection to the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle and the suggested teaching of David of determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle with the more explicit teaching of determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle found in Zecha, the more explicit teaching of an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle and an interface for making a wireless connection to the motor vehicle found in Hahne and the more explicit teaching of a processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle found in Lee. One could combine the teachings in order to have a system, comprising: a motor vehicle comprising: a device for determining a probable trajectory of the motor vehicle; an interface for making a wireless connection between the motor vehicle and a mobile device of a person outside the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: receive an indication of the probable trajectory of the mobile device; determine a relative position of the mobile device with respect to the motor vehicle; compare the probable trajectories with one another on the basis of the relative position; determine a possible collision between the motor vehicle and the person; and in response to a determination of the possible collision, automatically control the motor vehicle to avoid the collision, wherein to automatically control the motor vehicle the processing device is configured to at least one of: activate a longitudinal control system of the motor vehicle in order to accelerate or decelerate the motor or vehicle; or activate a lateral control system of the motor vehicle to change a direction of travel of the motor vehicle; and the mobile device comprising: a device for determining the probable trajectory of the mobile device; an interface for making a wireless connection to the motor vehicle; and a processing device configured to: transmit the probable trajectory of the mobile device to the motor vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide simple but effective collision avoidance between a vehicle and another traffic participant (see at least David, [0015]-[0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hieida et al. (US2022/0169245A1) Discloses an information processing apparatus including an input unit that inputs an image, a region estimation unit that estimates a region of an object contained in the image, a moving history information acquisition unit that acquires information associated with a moving history of the object, a contact region determination unit that determines a contact region in contact with the object on the basis of an estimation result obtained by the region estimation unit, and a moving range estimation unit that estimates a moving range of the object on the basis of the moving history containing the contact region of the object. The moving range estimation unit estimates the moving range of the object on the basis of the moving history containing the contact region of the object and a moving track of the object.
Nishizawa et al. (US2023/0316925A1) Discloses a notification device capable of providing an alarm notification with respect to a person who is likely to jump into a travel route of a vehicle at an appropriate time. The notification device provided in the vehicle acquires attribute information about a person located within a range of a predetermined distance from the vehicle. The notification device classifies the person based on the attribute information. The notification device adjusts a timing of a notification for the person based on a classification result.
Oh (US2022/0089152A1) Discloses an apparatus and method for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle which may derive predicted paths of a pedestrian and a two-wheel vehicle during autonomous driving of the vehicle so as to minimize accidents. The method includes calculating first height information allocating a first gradient that descends in a proceeding direction of objects, including a vehicle and a pedestrian, from respective positions of the objects based on dynamic information of the objects, calculating second height information allocating a second gradient based on a probability that the pedestrian will occupy infrastructure, calculating final height information by fusing the first height information and the second height information, generating a predicted path of the pedestrian, determining a driving strategy of a host vehicle based on a predicted path of the host vehicle and the predicted path of the pedestrian.
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 ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662