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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 5/18/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karandikar (US 2013/0184979 Al).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar (US 2013/0184979 Al) and in view of Kerecsen (US 2020/0294401 Al).
Regarding Claim 1 Karandikar teaches A method (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle.”) comprising: obtaining, using a controller of a vehicle, sensor data for the vehicle, the sensor data including a driver-selected transmission state of the vehicle (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Gear Position Sensor 404” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement.” ) and obstacle data for an exterior environment that is proximate to the vehicle; (Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Rear Object Sensor 408 & Front Object Sensor 406” & See Also Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car” ) obtaining, using the controller and the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; (Pg. 9 – [0012] – “As mentioned, the system of the present invention contains sensors that will detect the physical movement/position of the driver and the placement of the gear shift. Sensors will also detect the proximity of objects immediately surrounding the vehicle” (equates to obtaining, using the controller and the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; as the quote shows the proximity of the obstacles being detected away from the ego vehicle and in turn a grid is created in which the distance away obstacles are from the ego vehicle are categorized.)) generating, using the controller, an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state; (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “A driver mistakenly positioning the gear shift in the wrong position is just one of several safety hazards that can result from operating a motor vehicle. To address some of these hazards and to improve the safety of operating a motor vehicle several innovations have been developed to facilitate motor vehicle safety. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,866 to Wu, et al, describes an auto-parking device installed on a vehicle comprises a vehicle status sensing unit for detecting a state of a vehicle, an image acquisition unit for capturing vehicle outside image, a range sensing unit for measuring the space, a processing unit for receiving states of the vehicle from the vehicle status sensing unit, receiving environmental states from the image acquisition unit and range sensing unit, calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering, throttle and brake via a driving control unit to automatically park the car into the space as per the planned parking path.” (equates to generating, using the controller, an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state as the quote shows a route generation of parking a vehicle wherein the control of the vehicle is generated within the path created, and a transmission state is selected as the beginning of the quote shows the ‘mistakenly positioned gear shift’ and later a detection of vehicle state or transmission direction.) ) predicting, using the controller, unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move. The selected direction of the vehicle by the driver is initially detected. The invention then detects the driver's physical position and any objects in the immediate area surrounding the vehicle. Based on the information gathered from these detections, there is determination made regarding the vehicle direction selected by the driver. If the determination is the likelihood of an accident/collision if the vehicle moves in the selected direction, the present invention will alert the driver. In addition, an embodiment of the present invention may also include the ability to disable the vehicle in order to avoid a collision.” (equates to predicting, using the controller, unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state as the beginning of the abstract discloses the accidental transmission state being selected and the collision being avoided and thus a path of travel not corresponding to an intended path as the transmission is in an incorrect state.)) and taking, using the controller and in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. (Pg. 11 – [0042] – “In the event, the conclusion is that the gear position is incorrect for movement of the vehicle in the direction desired by the driver. In this case, step 816 will alert the driver as previously described. The driver alert could also be in the form of physically affecting the operation of the motor vehicle. The physical affect could be the automatic application of brakes to stop the vehicle from moving.” (equates to and taking, using the controller and in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. As the quote shows an alert or inhibition of driving being given when an unintended motion is detected. ))
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions.
Kerecsen teaches wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions (Pg. 63 – [0404] – “Each of the selected vehicles, such as the vehicles lla and lle, may execute a flow chart 50c that is part of the flow chart 50. The message sent by the server 32 as part of the "Send To Group" step 58a is received by a selected vehicle as part of a "Receive Message" step 59, and is acted upon by the receiving selected vehicle as part of a "Take Action" step 61. In one example, the selected vehicle use the received message, or any manipulation thereof, to notify the driver of the vehicle, such as displaying information, alert, or notification on a display, such as the dashboard display 16 of the selected vehicle, as part of a "Display to Driver" step 61a. Alternatively or in addition, the information received from the server 32 may be used to control, activate, deactivate, limit, or otherwise affect an actuator in the selected vehicle as part of an "Affect Actuator" step 61b.” (equates to wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as the quote shows the driver being alerted as to take an action of intervention with the vehicle and additionally an actuation of the vehicle is actualized to prevent unintended motion any further of the vehicle. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the driver to be alerted to the surrounding situation that they are not already aware of and similarly take action over the control of the vehicle to ensure the safety of the occupants if the driver doesn’t react quickly enough to the first alert.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the vehicle to have a multiple level approach in concern for the occupants and vehicle safety for mitigating unintended motion of the vehicle .
Regarding Claim 2 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations) The method of claim 1, wherein the non-selected transmission state is an opposing transmission state, wherein actuation of an accelerator in the driver-selected transmission state would propel the vehicle in a first direction and actuation of the accelerator in the opposing transmission state would propel the vehicle in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. (Pg. 9 – [0022] – “When a car is at a dead halt position and the driver of the vehicle wants to reverse the vehicle in a transmission gear system, he or she does so by engaging the gear shift selector by putting it into reverse. However in some instances, he or she accidentally puts the gear into the drive position. The driver is not aware of this mistake and has now turned their head backwards to look in the rear direction of the vehicle. The driver then presses the accelerator of the vehicle and the vehicle moves forwards instead of backwards. Current systems have no warning or other means to alert the driver that this gear selection is wrong.” (equates to wherein the non-selected transmission state is an opposing transmission state, wherein actuation of an accelerator in the driver-selected transmission state would propel the vehicle in a first direction and actuation of the accelerator in the opposing transmission state would propel the vehicle in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction as the quote shows a non-selected transmission state being the drive direction, and the actuation of the vehicle being in the forward or second direction rather than the intended reverse or first direction.))
Regarding Claim 3 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations) The method of claim 1, wherein determining the unintended motion includes a determination that the ego path intersects an object of the obstacle grid. (Pg. 9 – [0022] – “When a car is at a dead halt position and the driver of the vehicle wants to reverse the vehicle in a transmission gear system, he or she does so by engaging the gear shift selector by putting it into reverse. However in some instances, he or she accidentally puts the gear into the drive position. The driver is not aware of this mistake and has now turned their head backwards to look in the rear direction of the vehicle. The driver then presses the accelerator of the vehicle and the vehicle moves forwards instead of backwards. Current systems have no warning or other means to alert the driver that this gear selection is wrong. Instead, the vehicle lurches forward. If the vehicle was parked in a parking space close to the sidewalk which was in front of a restaurant whose patrons where sitting at a table in a designated place on that sidewalk next to the curb imagine what could happen to those dining. They could potentially be hit by this vehicle which was intending to reverse but accidentally lurched ahead because of a wrong gear selection.” (equates to wherein determining the unintended motion includes a determination that the ego path intersects an object of the obstacle grid. As the quote shows the motion potentially colliding with patrons of a restaurant and thus the ego path is intersecting an object it otherwise wouldn’t if the correct gear direction was given. ))
Regarding Claim 10 Karandikar teaches A system comprising: (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle.”) a controller including a processor and instructions that, when executed, cause the system to: (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “The system comprises a central processing unit 402 located in the motor vehicle”) obtain sensor data for a vehicle, the sensor data including a driver-selected transmission state of the vehicle (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Gear Position Sensor 404” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement.” ) and obstacle data for an exterior environment that is proximate to the vehicle; (Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Rear Object Sensor 408 & Front Object Sensor 406” & See Also Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car” ) obtain, using the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; (Pg. 9 – [0012] – “As mentioned, the system of the present invention contains sensors that will detect the physical movement/position of the driver and the placement of the gear shift. Sensors will also detect the proximity of objects immediately surrounding the vehicle” (equates to obtaining, using the controller and the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; as the quote shows the proximity of the obstacles being detected away from the ego vehicle and in turn a grid is created in which the distance away obstacles are from the ego vehicle are categorized.)) generate an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state; (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “A driver mistakenly positioning the gear shift in the wrong position is just one of several safety hazards that can result from operating a motor vehicle. To address some of these hazards and to improve the safety of operating a motor vehicle several innovations have been developed to facilitate motor vehicle safety. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,866 to Wu, et al, describes an auto-parking device installed on a vehicle comprises a vehicle status sensing unit for detecting a state of a vehicle, an image acquisition unit for capturing vehicle outside image, a range sensing unit for measuring the space, a processing unit for receiving states of the vehicle from the vehicle status sensing unit, receiving environmental states from the image acquisition unit and range sensing unit, calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering, throttle and brake via a driving control unit to automatically park the car into the space as per the planned parking path.” (equates to generating, using the controller, an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state as the quote shows a route generation of parking a vehicle wherein the control of the vehicle is generated within the path created, and a transmission state is selected as the beginning of the quote shows the ‘mistakenly positioned gear shift’ and later a detection of vehicle state or transmission direction.) ) predict unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move. The selected direction of the vehicle by the driver is initially detected. The invention then detects the driver's physical position and any objects in the immediate area surrounding the vehicle. Based on the information gathered from these detections, there is determination made regarding the vehicle direction selected by the driver. If the determination is the likelihood of an accident/collision if the vehicle moves in the selected direction, the present invention will alert the driver. In addition, an embodiment of the present invention may also include the ability to disable the vehicle in order to avoid a collision.” (equates to predicting, using the controller, unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state as the beginning of the abstract discloses the accidental transmission state being selected and the collision being avoided and thus a path of travel not corresponding to an intended path as the transmission is in an incorrect state.)) and take, in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. (Pg. 11 – [0042] – “In the event, the conclusion is that the gear position is incorrect for movement of the vehicle in the direction desired by the driver. In this case, step 816 will alert the driver as previously described. The driver alert could also be in the form of physically affecting the operation of the motor vehicle. The physical affect could be the automatic application of brakes to stop the vehicle from moving.” (equates to and taking, using the controller and in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. As the quote shows an alert or inhibition of driving being given when an unintended motion is detected. ))
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions.
Kerecsen teaches wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions (Pg. 63 – [0404] – “Each of the selected vehicles, such as the vehicles lla and lle, may execute a flow chart 50c that is part of the flow chart 50. The message sent by the server 32 as part of the "Send To Group" step 58a is received by a selected vehicle as part of a "Receive Message" step 59, and is acted upon by the receiving selected vehicle as part of a "Take Action" step 61. In one example, the selected vehicle use the received message, or any manipulation thereof, to notify the driver of the vehicle, such as displaying information, alert, or notification on a display, such as the dashboard display 16 of the selected vehicle, as part of a "Display to Driver" step 61a. Alternatively or in addition, the information received from the server 32 may be used to control, activate, deactivate, limit, or otherwise affect an actuator in the selected vehicle as part of an "Affect Actuator" step 61b.” (equates to wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as the quote shows the driver being alerted as to take an action of intervention with the vehicle and additionally an actuation of the vehicle is actualized to prevent unintended motion any further of the vehicle. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the driver to be alerted to the surrounding situation that they are not already aware of and similarly take action over the control of the vehicle to ensure the safety of the occupants if the driver doesn’t react quickly enough to the first alert.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the vehicle to have a multiple level approach in concern for the occupants and vehicle safety for mitigating unintended motion of the vehicle .
Regarding Claim 11 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations) The system of claim 10, wherein the non-selected transmission state is an opposing transmission state, wherein actuation of an accelerator in the driver-selected transmission state would propel the vehicle in a first direction and actuation of the accelerator in the opposing transmission state would propel the vehicle in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. (Pg. 9 – [0022] – “When a car is at a dead halt position and the driver of the vehicle wants to reverse the vehicle in a transmission gear system, he or she does so by engaging the gear shift selector by putting it into reverse. However in some instances, he or she accidentally puts the gear into the drive position. The driver is not aware of this mistake and has now turned their head backwards to look in the rear direction of the vehicle. The driver then presses the accelerator of the vehicle and the vehicle moves forwards instead of backwards. Current systems have no warning or other means to alert the driver that this gear selection is wrong.” (equates to wherein the non-selected transmission state is an opposing transmission state, wherein actuation of an accelerator in the driver-selected transmission state would propel the vehicle in a first direction and actuation of the accelerator in the opposing transmission state would propel the vehicle in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction as the quote shows a non-selected transmission state being the drive direction, and the actuation of the vehicle being in the forward or second direction rather than the intended reverse or first direction.))
Regarding Claim 12 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations) The system of claim 10, wherein determining the unintended motion includes a determination that the ego path intersects an object of the obstacle grid. (Pg. 9 – [0022] – “When a car is at a dead halt position and the driver of the vehicle wants to reverse the vehicle in a transmission gear system, he or she does so by engaging the gear shift selector by putting it into reverse. However in some instances, he or she accidentally puts the gear into the drive position. The driver is not aware of this mistake and has now turned their head backwards to look in the rear direction of the vehicle. The driver then presses the accelerator of the vehicle and the vehicle moves forwards instead of backwards. Current systems have no warning or other means to alert the driver that this gear selection is wrong. Instead, the vehicle lurches forward. If the vehicle was parked in a parking space close to the sidewalk which was in front of a restaurant whose patrons where sitting at a table in a designated place on that sidewalk next to the curb imagine what could happen to those dining. They could potentially be hit by this vehicle which was intending to reverse but accidentally lurched ahead because of a wrong gear selection.” (equates to wherein determining the unintended motion includes a determination that the ego path intersects an object of the obstacle grid. As the quote shows the motion potentially colliding with patrons of a restaurant and thus the ego path is intersecting an object it otherwise wouldn’t if the correct gear direction was given. ))
Regarding Claim 18 Karandikar teaches A vehicle (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.”) comprising: a controller including a processor and instructions that, when executed, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “The system comprises a central processing unit 402 located in the motor vehicle”) cause the vehicle to: obtain sensor data for the vehicle, (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Gear Position Sensor 404” & See Also Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement.” ) the sensor data including a driver-selected transmission state of the vehicle (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement.”) and obstacle data for an exterior environment that is proximate to the vehicle; (Pg. 4 – Fig. 4 – “Rear Object Sensor 408 & Front Object Sensor 406” & See Also Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car” ) obtain, using the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; (Pg. 9 – [0012] – “As mentioned, the system of the present invention contains sensors that will detect the physical movement/position of the driver and the placement of the gear shift. Sensors will also detect the proximity of objects immediately surrounding the vehicle” (equates to obtaining, using the controller and the obstacle data, an obstacle grid for objects in the exterior environment; as the quote shows the proximity of the obstacles being detected away from the ego vehicle and in turn a grid is created in which the distance away obstacles are from the ego vehicle are categorized.)) generate an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state; (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “A driver mistakenly positioning the gear shift in the wrong position is just one of several safety hazards that can result from operating a motor vehicle. To address some of these hazards and to improve the safety of operating a motor vehicle several innovations have been developed to facilitate motor vehicle safety. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,737,866 to Wu, et al, describes an auto-parking device installed on a vehicle comprises a vehicle status sensing unit for detecting a state of a vehicle, an image acquisition unit for capturing vehicle outside image, a range sensing unit for measuring the space, a processing unit for receiving states of the vehicle from the vehicle status sensing unit, receiving environmental states from the image acquisition unit and range sensing unit, calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering, throttle and brake via a driving control unit to automatically park the car into the space as per the planned parking path.” (equates to generating, using the controller, an ego path for the vehicle using the driver-selected transmission state as the quote shows a route generation of parking a vehicle wherein the control of the vehicle is generated within the path created, and a transmission state is selected as the beginning of the quote shows the ‘mistakenly positioned gear shift’ and later a detection of vehicle state or transmission direction.) )predict unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move. The selected direction of the vehicle by the driver is initially detected. The invention then detects the driver's physical position and any objects in the immediate area surrounding the vehicle. Based on the information gathered from these detections, there is determination made regarding the vehicle direction selected by the driver. If the determination is the likelihood of an accident/collision if the vehicle moves in the selected direction, the present invention will alert the driver. In addition, an embodiment of the present invention may also include the ability to disable the vehicle in order to avoid a collision.” (equates to predicting, using the controller, unintended motion of the vehicle including determining the ego path does not correspond with an intended path of the vehicle using a non-selected transmission state as the beginning of the abstract discloses the accidental transmission state being selected and the collision being avoided and thus a path of travel not corresponding to an intended path as the transmission is in an incorrect state.)) and take, in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. (Pg. 11 – [0042] – “In the event, the conclusion is that the gear position is incorrect for movement of the vehicle in the direction desired by the driver. In this case, step 816 will alert the driver as previously described. The driver alert could also be in the form of physically affecting the operation of the motor vehicle. The physical affect could be the automatic application of brakes to stop the vehicle from moving.” (equates to and taking, using the controller and in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path. As the quote shows an alert or inhibition of driving being given when an unintended motion is detected. ))
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions.
Kerecsen teaches wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions (Pg. 63 – [0404] – “Each of the selected vehicles, such as the vehicles lla and lle, may execute a flow chart 50c that is part of the flow chart 50. The message sent by the server 32 as part of the "Send To Group" step 58a is received by a selected vehicle as part of a "Receive Message" step 59, and is acted upon by the receiving selected vehicle as part of a "Take Action" step 61. In one example, the selected vehicle use the received message, or any manipulation thereof, to notify the driver of the vehicle, such as displaying information, alert, or notification on a display, such as the dashboard display 16 of the selected vehicle, as part of a "Display to Driver" step 61a. Alternatively or in addition, the information received from the server 32 may be used to control, activate, deactivate, limit, or otherwise affect an actuator in the selected vehicle as part of an "Affect Actuator" step 61b.” (equates to wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as the quote shows the driver being alerted as to take an action of intervention with the vehicle and additionally an actuation of the vehicle is actualized to prevent unintended motion any further of the vehicle. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the driver to be alerted to the surrounding situation that they are not already aware of and similarly take action over the control of the vehicle to ensure the safety of the occupants if the driver doesn’t react quickly enough to the first alert.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as this allows for the vehicle to have a multiple level approach in concern for the occupants and vehicle safety for mitigating unintended motion of the vehicle .
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar in view of Ehmann (DE102019206981B4).
Regarding Claim 14 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches The system of claim 10, as previously mapped above.
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics.
Ehmann teaches wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold (Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.” ) the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics. (Pg. 5 – [0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously.” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0017] – “By recording the actuation amplitude, it is also possible to infer a probability of the control device being actuated. For example, a sudden press of the accelerator pedal can be interpreted as an unintentional action if the environmental sensors and the driver's behavior do not indicate that strong acceleration corresponds to appropriate driving behavior in the current driving situation.” (equates to the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as the first quote shows the driver action metrics being taken into consideration and the second quote showing the comparison between the driver action metrics and the vehicle driven metrics like the accelerator being depressed compared to the reaction of the user.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar to include wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as this allows a defined threshold value aside from distance to an object to be considered when understanding the intention of a driver in relation to the environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as this allows for a diverse picture of the driver’s scenario to be considered and ensure the intention of the driver match the outputted information into the vehicle.
Claim(s) 8-9, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar- Kerecsen-Ehmann as previously mapped above in view of Olson (US 9,934,688 B2)
Regarding Claim 8 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The method of claim 1, wherein the driver-action metrics include transmission gear state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement. This sensor could be positioned in the vehicle similar to the current means that indicates to the driver the gear of the transmission. In fact that same means that indicates the current gear to the driver can serve as the sensor 404 that will submit the gear information to the processing unit 402.” ) driver attention state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “For example, this sensor can detect if the driver is in a forward looking position when the gear shift position is in the drive position” (equates to driver attention state as the quote shows the driver attention being prescribed a direction based on the gear shift)) at least one driver pedal command, (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to at least one driver pedal command, as the throttle or accelerator pedal can be controlled)) and driver steering angle command. ((Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to and driver steering angle command as the steering and thus the steering angle can be controlled.)))
Yet Karandikar- Kerecsen fails to teach time since last gear shift, wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics, wherein calculating the probability of an incorrect transmission state includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics, each of the weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and the weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics having been weighed by a scalar weight, time since last gear shift,
Olson teaches includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics. (Pg. 13 – Col. 13 – lines 19-27 - “weights 15 w q that express user importance. Typical metrics include the 20 (remaining) distance to the goal at the end of the evaluation horizon to evaluate progress made toward the destination, minimum distance to obstacles to evaluate safety, a lane choice bias to add a preference for the right lane, and the maximum yaw rate and longitudinal jerk to measure passenger comfort. For a full policy 46 assignment (it,s) with rollout 1Jf"•5 , we compute the rollout reward r,, s as the weighted sum” (equates to includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as the rollout reward is defined as a weighted used wherein a driver action metric such as lane bias is considered and vehicle based metric including minimum distance to the obstacle is considered.)) each of the weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and the weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics having been weighed by a scalar weight (Pg. 13 – [Col. 13 – lines 16-20] – “The reward function for evaluating the outcome of a rollout 1P involving all non-host and host vehicles 14, 16 is a weighted combination of metrics mq(•)EM, with weights 15 w q that express user importance… To avoid biasing decisions, a weight w q 30 may be set to zero when the range of mq( •) across all samples is too small to be informative.” (equates to each of the weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and the weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics having been weighed by a scalar weight as the quote shows the individual performance metrics being considered for weighting based on user importance wherein the value is an adjustable scalar depending on the scenario devised.) )
Yet Karandikar-Olson fails to teach time since last gear shift, wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics, time since last gear shift,
Ehmann teaches wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, (Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.” )) the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics ((Pg. 5 – [0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously.” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0017] – “By recording the actuation amplitude, it is also possible to infer a probability of the control device being actuated. For example, a sudden press of the accelerator pedal can be interpreted as an unintentional action if the environmental sensors and the driver's behavior do not indicate that strong acceleration corresponds to appropriate driving behavior in the current driving situation.” (equates to the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as the first quote shows the driver action metrics being taken into consideration and the second quote showing the comparison between the driver action metrics and the vehicle driven metrics like the accelerator being depressed compared to the reaction of the user.) )) time since last gear shift. (Pg. 4 – [0013] – “In this context, a control device means a motor vehicle's accelerator pedal, in particular a brake pedal or accelerator pedal, a steering wheel or steering lever and a gear selector lever.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0021] –“ In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a time point is recorded at which an intended actuation of the control device is last inferred, and a probability value is determined based on the time interval between the last action classified as intended and the current action, indicating the probability that a conscious actuation of the control element takes place.” (equates to time since last gear shift as the first quote shows the control device being that of the gear selection lever and the second quote showing the time since the change or use of the control device and thus the gear selector lever.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar-Olson to include wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics; time since last gear shift; as this allows another metric as to how the driver is interacting with the system and sets up a probability problem in which driver and vehicle metrics are used to determine an incorrect transmission state.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics; time since last gear shift; as this limitation better allows the system to understand if the driver is asleep or unintentionally interacting with the drive system while in a particular state of transmission based on the additional implemented variable and the probability problem step up within this reference.
Regarding Claim 9 Karandikar- Kerecsen-Ehmann-Olson teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations:) The method of claim 8, wherein the vehicle-based metrics include distance to at least one obstacle grid, (Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car.” ) proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “If the determination in step 706 is that there is one or more objects within the threshold distance of the vehicle, step 710 detects the selected gear position. This information is also sent to the processing unit. Using this information and the information regarding the detection of objects within the threshold distance, step 712 determines if there is a likelihood of confusion. If the conclusion is that there is no likelihood of confusion, again the process can terminate in step 708. If there is a conclusion of the likelihood of a collision, step 714 alerts the driver of the condition.” & See Also Pg. 8 – [0004] – “calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering” (equates to proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first quote shows the collision between an ego vehicle and an object being detected and the second quote showing how the path of the vehicle can be generated an attained wherein the path itself is then going to go through the object detection as described in the first quote to ensure a collision is mitigated.) ) surface indicia around the vehicle, (Pg. 10 – [0029 & 0030] – “FIG. 2 shows a view of a motor 204 backed into a parking space 202. In this configuration an object 212 is directly behind the rear of the parked vehicle 204. In this configuration an unintended movement of the vehicle in the back or reverse direction could cause the vehicle to strike the stationary object 212. The close proximity of the object to the vehicle would make it very difficult to avoid a collision with the stationary object in the event of vehicle movement in the rear direction. [0030] FIG. 3 shows a view similar to FIG. 1 in that the motor vehicle 304 is parked forward in a parking lot slot. In this configuration, a parking barrier 308 is in front of the vehicle. The rear of the vehicle is clear of objects and there appears to be space in back the car out of the parking slot. In this configuration, a pedestrian 314 is approaching the parking slot occupied by the vehicle. Although, the driver may intend to back the vehicle out of the parking lot slot, because of the approaching pedestrian, the driver may not want to move the in the reverse direction in order to avoid a possible collision with the pedestrian 314. In any of the described configurations in FIG. 1, 2 or 3, it is desirable to be able to alert the driver to conditions surrounding the vehicle and the position of the gear shift in order to avoid potential vehicle collisions.” (equates to surface indicia around the vehicle as the quote shows the detection of different objects and thus surface indicia is detected in the vehicle based parameter.) )and history of motion of the vehicle. (Pg. 8 – [0006] – “describes an arrival detection method for automatically detecting arrival of a current destination based on various conditions and proceeding to route guidance for the next destination when two or more destinations are specified. The method includes the steps of guiding a vehicle of the user to a current destination, detecting whether a current vehicle position is within a predetermined distance from the current destination, applying a primary condition when the vehicle is within the predetermined distance, applying a secondary condition when, the primary condition is met, and determining arrival at the current destination when the secondary condition is met and proceeding to a route guidance operation for the next destination. The primary condition is a time length during which the vehicle is stationary within the predetermined distance from the current destination.” (equates to history of motion of the vehicle as the quote shows the entirety of the vehicle route being considered wherein different route guidance is allotted to the ego vehicle based on the recognition of exiting a prior route, then arriving at a new one in which the history of the motion is considered to ensure the guidance is transitioned to what is now relevant for the vehicle.) )
Yet Karandikar-Ehmann fails to teach proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle
Olson teaches proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 3 – Fig. 1 & See Also Pg. 10 – [CO. 8 – lines 50- 55] – “This policy 46 is a variation on lane nominal for use when there are obstacles blocking the path, as would happen with construction or larger road obstructions. In this case, the behavior uses a local path planner to find a route around the obstructions, with the goal of reaching the reference lane in the future” (equates to proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first figure shows the host vehicle having a plurality of paths and are in reference to the obstacles around the vehicle and the quote showing how the correct path is chosen out of the plurality of path candidates to ensure a safe passage of the host vehicle throughout the traffic scenario.)) a speed of the vehicle (Pg. 8 – [co. 4 – lines 30-33] – “Further, the predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 may be defined to depend on other conditions, e.g., a speed of the host vehicle 14,”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar-Ehmann to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as these limitations allow for plurality of paths to be considered in the ego path generation as well as vehicle data concerning its movement to be included as well.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as this allows for a variety of other vehicle based parameters to be considered for weighting the system within the environment effectively.
Regarding Claim 15 Karandikar- Kerecsen -Ehmann teaches The system of claim 14, as previously mapped above.
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein calculating the probability of an incorrect transmission state includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics.
Ehmann teaches wherein calculating the probability of an incorrect transmission state (Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.”)
Yet both fail to teach includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics.
Olson teaches includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics. (Pg. 13 – Col. 13 – lines 19-27 - “weights 15 w q that express user importance. Typical metrics include the 20 (remaining) distance to the goal at the end of the evaluation horizon to evaluate progress made toward the destination, minimum distance to obstacles to evaluate safety, a lane choice bias to add a preference for the right lane, and the maximum yaw rate and longitudinal jerk to measure passenger comfort. For a full policy 46 assignment (it,s) with rollout 1Jf"•5 , we compute the rollout reward r,, s as the weighted sum” (equates to includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as the rollout reward is defined as a weighted used wherein a driver action metric such as lane bias is considered and vehicle based metric including minimum distance to the obstacle is considered.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar- Ehmann to include includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as this allows a simple equation to give the variables under consideration to have a varied level of importance and ensures that metrics taken into account that are more critical user safety are then weighted more.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as this allows use safety to be considered most importantly in the equation provided that describes the variable under consideration within the method steps.
Regarding Claim 16 Karandikar- Kerecsen -Ehmann-Olson teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The system of claim 15, wherein the driver-action metrics include transmission gear state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement. This sensor could be positioned in the vehicle similar to the current means that indicates to the driver the gear of the transmission. In fact that same means that indicates the current gear to the driver can serve as the sensor 404 that will submit the gear information to the processing unit 402.” ) driver attention state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “For example, this sensor can detect if the driver is in a forward looking position when the gear shift position is in the drive position” (equates to driver attention state as the quote shows the driver attention being prescribed a direction based on the gear shift))at least one driver pedal command, (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to at least one driver pedal command, as the throttle or accelerator pedal can be controlled)) and driver steering angle command. ((Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to and driver steering angle command as the steering and thus the steering angle can be controlled.)))
Yet Karandikar -Olson fails to teach time since last gear shift.
Ehmann teaches time since last gear shift. (Pg. 4 – [0013] – “In this context, a control device means a motor vehicle's accelerator pedal, in particular a brake pedal or accelerator pedal, a steering wheel or steering lever and a gear selector lever.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0021] –“ In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a time point is recorded at which an intended actuation of the control device is last inferred, and a probability value is determined based on the time interval between the last action classified as intended and the current action, indicating the probability that a conscious actuation of the control element takes place.” (equates to time since last gear shift as the first quote shows the control device being that of the gear selection lever and the second quote showing the time since the change or use of the control device and thus the gear selector lever.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar-Olson to include time since last gear shift as this allows another metric as to how the driver is interacting with the system.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include time since last gear shift as this limitation better allows the system to understand if the driver is asleep or unintentionally interacting with the drive system while in a particular state of transmission.
Regarding Claim 17 Karandikar- Kerecsen -Ehmann-Olson teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle-based metrics include distance to at least one obstacle grid, (Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car.” ) proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “If the determination in step 706 is that there is one or more objects within the threshold distance of the vehicle, step 710 detects the selected gear position. This information is also sent to the processing unit. Using this information and the information regarding the detection of objects within the threshold distance, step 712 determines if there is a likelihood of confusion. If the conclusion is that there is no likelihood of confusion, again the process can terminate in step 708. If there is a conclusion of the likelihood of a collision, step 714 alerts the driver of the condition.” & See Also Pg. 8 – [0004] – “calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering” (equates to proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first quote shows the collision between an ego vehicle and an object being detected and the second quote showing how the path of the vehicle can be generated an attained wherein the path itself is then going to go through the object detection as described in the first quote to ensure a collision is mitigated.) ), surface indicia around the vehicle, (Pg. 10 – [0029 & 0030] – “FIG. 2 shows a view of a motor 204 backed into a parking space 202. In this configuration an object 212 is directly behind the rear of the parked vehicle 204. In this configuration an unintended movement of the vehicle in the back or reverse direction could cause the vehicle to strike the stationary object 212. The close proximity of the object to the vehicle would make it very difficult to avoid a collision with the stationary object in the event of vehicle movement in the rear direction. [0030] FIG. 3 shows a view similar to FIG. 1 in that the motor vehicle 304 is parked forward in a parking lot slot. In this configuration, a parking barrier 308 is in front of the vehicle. The rear of the vehicle is clear of objects and there appears to be space in back the car out of the parking slot. In this configuration, a pedestrian 314 is approaching the parking slot occupied by the vehicle. Although, the driver may intend to back the vehicle out of the parking lot slot, because of the approaching pedestrian, the driver may not want to move the in the reverse direction in order to avoid a possible collision with the pedestrian 314. In any of the described configurations in FIG. 1, 2 or 3, it is desirable to be able to alert the driver to conditions surrounding the vehicle and the position of the gear shift in order to avoid potential vehicle collisions.” (equates to surface indicia around the vehicle as the quote shows the detection of different objects and thus surface indicia is detected in the vehicle based parameter.) ) and history of motion of the vehicle. (Pg. 8 – [0006] – “describes an arrival detection method for automatically detecting arrival of a current destination based on various conditions and proceeding to route guidance for the next destination when two or more destinations are specified. The method includes the steps of guiding a vehicle of the user to a current destination, detecting whether a current vehicle position is within a predetermined distance from the current destination, applying a primary condition when the vehicle is within the predetermined distance, applying a secondary condition when, the primary condition is met, and determining arrival at the current destination when the secondary condition is met and proceeding to a route guidance operation for the next destination. The primary condition is a time length during which the vehicle is stationary within the predetermined distance from the current destination.” (equates to history of motion of the vehicle as the quote shows the entirety of the vehicle route being considered wherein different route guidance is allotted to the ego vehicle based on the recognition of exiting a prior route, then arriving at a new one in which the history of the motion is considered to ensure the guidance is transitioned to what is now relevant for the vehicle.) )
Yet Karandikar-Ehmann fails to teach proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle
Olson teaches proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 3 – Fig. 1 & See Also Pg. 10 – [CO. 8 – lines 50- 55] – “This policy 46 is a variation on lane nominal for use when there are obstacles blocking the path, as would happen with construction or larger road obstructions. In this case, the behavior uses a local path planner to find a route around the obstructions, with the goal of reaching the reference lane in the future” (equates to proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first figure shows the host vehicle having a plurality of paths and are in reference to the obstacles around the vehicle and the quote showing how the correct path is chosen out of the plurality of path candidates to ensure a safe passage of the host vehicle throughout the traffic scenario.)) a speed of the vehicle (Pg. 8 – [co. 4 – lines 30-33] – “Further, the predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 may be defined to depend on other conditions, e.g., a speed of the host vehicle 14,”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar-Ehmann to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as these limitations allow for plurality of paths to be considered in the ego path generation as well as vehicle data concerning its movement to be included as well.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as this allows for a variety of other vehicle based parameters to be considered for weighting the system within the environment effectively.
Regarding Claim 19 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches The vehicle of claim 18, as previously mapped above.
Yet Karandikar fails to teach wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics, and wherein calculating the probability of an incorrect transmission state includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics.
Ehmann Teaches wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold, ((Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.” )) the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics (Pg. 5 – [0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously.” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0017] – “By recording the actuation amplitude, it is also possible to infer a probability of the control device being actuated. For example, a sudden press of the accelerator pedal can be interpreted as an unintentional action if the environmental sensors and the driver's behavior do not indicate that strong acceleration corresponds to appropriate driving behavior in the current driving situation.” (equates to the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as the first quote shows the driver action metrics being taken into consideration and the second quote showing the comparison between the driver action metrics and the vehicle driven metrics like the accelerator being depressed compared to the reaction of the user.) ) calculating the probability of an incorrect transmission state (Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.”)
Yet Karandikar- Kerecsen -Ehmann fails to teach includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics.
Olson teaches includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics. (Pg. 13 – Col. 13 – lines 19-27 - “weights 15 w q that express user importance. Typical metrics include the 20 (remaining) distance to the goal at the end of the evaluation horizon to evaluate progress made toward the destination, minimum distance to obstacles to evaluate safety, a lane choice bias to add a preference for the right lane, and the maximum yaw rate and longitudinal jerk to measure passenger comfort. For a full policy 46 assignment (it,s) with rollout 1Jf"•5 , we compute the rollout reward r,, s as the weighted sum” (equates to includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as the rollout reward is defined as a weighted used wherein a driver action metric such as lane bias is considered and vehicle based metric including minimum distance to the obstacle is considered.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar- Ehmann to include includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as this allows a simple equation to give the variables under consideration to have a varied level of importance and ensures that metrics taken into account that are more critical user safety are then weighted more.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include includes a sum of weighted probabilities of the driver-action metrics and weighted probabilities of the vehicle-based metrics as this allows use safety to be considered most importantly in the equation provided that describes the variable under consideration within the vehicle configuration.
Regarding Claim 20 Karandikar- Kerecsen -Ehmann- Olson teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The vehicle of claim 19, wherein the driver-action metrics include transmission gear state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “This set of sensors includes gear position sensor 404 that will detect when the driver puts the transmission into a gear for vehicle movement. This sensor could be positioned in the vehicle similar to the current means that indicates to the driver the gear of the transmission. In fact that same means that indicates the current gear to the driver can serve as the sensor 404 that will submit the gear information to the processing unit 402.” ) driver attention state, (Pg. 10 – [0031] – “For example, this sensor can detect if the driver is in a forward looking position when the gear shift position is in the drive position” (equates to driver attention state as the quote shows the driver attention being prescribed a direction based on the gear shift)) at least one driver pedal command, (Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to at least one driver pedal command, as the throttle or accelerator pedal can be controlled)) and driver steering angle command ((Pg. 8 – [0004] – “controlling the vehicle steering, throttle” (equates to and driver steering angle command as the steering and thus the steering angle can be controlled.))) and wherein the vehicle-based metrics include distance to at least one obstacle grid, (Pg. 9 – [0024] – “Gear in park and prediction algorithm uses known aids to gather information around the car i.e. if there are any obstacles around it and what the distance is between those obstacles and the car.” ) proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 11 – [0041] – “If the determination in step 706 is that there is one or more objects within the threshold distance of the vehicle, step 710 detects the selected gear position. This information is also sent to the processing unit. Using this information and the information regarding the detection of objects within the threshold distance, step 712 determines if there is a likelihood of confusion. If the conclusion is that there is no likelihood of confusion, again the process can terminate in step 708. If there is a conclusion of the likelihood of a collision, step 714 alerts the driver of the condition.” & See Also Pg. 8 – [0004] – “calculating a parking path based on parallel parking or back in parking and then controlling the vehicle steering” (equates to proximity of the ego path to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first quote shows the collision between an ego vehicle and an object being detected and the second quote showing how the path of the vehicle can be generated an attained wherein the path itself is then going to go through the object detection as described in the first quote to ensure a collision is mitigated.) ), surface indicia around the vehicle, (Pg. 10 – [0029 & 0030] – “FIG. 2 shows a view of a motor 204 backed into a parking space 202. In this configuration an object 212 is directly behind the rear of the parked vehicle 204. In this configuration an unintended movement of the vehicle in the back or reverse direction could cause the vehicle to strike the stationary object 212. The close proximity of the object to the vehicle would make it very difficult to avoid a collision with the stationary object in the event of vehicle movement in the rear direction. [0030] FIG. 3 shows a view similar to FIG. 1 in that the motor vehicle 304 is parked forward in a parking lot slot. In this configuration, a parking barrier 308 is in front of the vehicle. The rear of the vehicle is clear of objects and there appears to be space in back the car out of the parking slot. In this configuration, a pedestrian 314 is approaching the parking slot occupied by the vehicle. Although, the driver may intend to back the vehicle out of the parking lot slot, because of the approaching pedestrian, the driver may not want to move the in the reverse direction in order to avoid a possible collision with the pedestrian 314. In any of the described configurations in FIG. 1, 2 or 3, it is desirable to be able to alert the driver to conditions surrounding the vehicle and the position of the gear shift in order to avoid potential vehicle collisions.” (equates to surface indicia around the vehicle as the quote shows the detection of different objects and thus surface indicia is detected in the vehicle based parameter.) ) and history of motion of the vehicle. (Pg. 8 – [0006] – “describes an arrival detection method for automatically detecting arrival of a current destination based on various conditions and proceeding to route guidance for the next destination when two or more destinations are specified. The method includes the steps of guiding a vehicle of the user to a current destination, detecting whether a current vehicle position is within a predetermined distance from the current destination, applying a primary condition when the vehicle is within the predetermined distance, applying a secondary condition when, the primary condition is met, and determining arrival at the current destination when the secondary condition is met and proceeding to a route guidance operation for the next destination. The primary condition is a time length during which the vehicle is stationary within the predetermined distance from the current destination.” (equates to history of motion of the vehicle as the quote shows the entirety of the vehicle route being considered wherein different route guidance is allotted to the ego vehicle based on the recognition of exiting a prior route, then arriving at a new one in which the history of the motion is considered to ensure the guidance is transitioned to what is now relevant for the vehicle.) )
Yet Karandikar fails to teach time since last gear shift, proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle.
Ehmann teaches time since last gear shift. (Pg. 4 – [0013] – “In this context, a control device means a motor vehicle's accelerator pedal, in particular a brake pedal or accelerator pedal, a steering wheel or steering lever and a gear selector lever.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0021] –“ In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a time point is recorded at which an intended actuation of the control device is last inferred, and a probability value is determined based on the time interval between the last action classified as intended and the current action, indicating the probability that a conscious actuation of the control element takes place.” (equates to time since last gear shift as the first quote shows the control device being that of the gear selection lever and the second quote showing the time since the change or use of the control device and thus the gear selector lever.))
Yet Karandikar-Ehmann fails to teach proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle
Olson teaches proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, (Pg. 3 – Fig. 1 & See Also Pg. 10 – [CO. 8 – lines 50- 55] – “This policy 46 is a variation on lane nominal for use when there are obstacles blocking the path, as would happen with construction or larger road obstructions. In this case, the behavior uses a local path planner to find a route around the obstructions, with the goal of reaching the reference lane in the future” (equates to proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids as the first figure shows the host vehicle having a plurality of paths and are in reference to the obstacles around the vehicle and the quote showing how the correct path is chosen out of the plurality of path candidates to ensure a safe passage of the host vehicle throughout the traffic scenario.)) a speed of the vehicle (Pg. 8 – [co. 4 – lines 30-33] – “Further, the predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 may be defined to depend on other conditions, e.g., a speed of the host vehicle 14,”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Karandikar-Ehmann to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as these limitations allow for plurality of paths to be considered in the ego path generation as well as vehicle data concerning its movement to be included as well.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include proximity of available paths to a respective one or more of the at least one obstacle grids, a speed of the vehicle as this allows for a variety of other vehicle based parameters to be considered for weighting the system within the environment effectively.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karandikar- Kerecsen Ehmann as mapped above in view of Kegelman et al. (US 2021/0046932 Al).
Regarding Claim 4 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the intended path based on an available path of the vehicle for the non-selected transmission state (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.” (equates to determining the intended path based on an available path of the vehicle for the non-selected transmission state as the quote shows the intention of the driver to go along a certain path but the transmission isn’t selected to go in said direction and thus the available path being the one intended isn’t currently possible.))
Yet Karandikar- Kerecsen fails to teach being a prior ego path for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state.
Ehmann teaches for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state. (Pg. 1 – [0003] – “During these secondary activities, it can happen that the driver unintentionally touches a control device of the motor vehicle, in particular an accelerator pedal, the gear selector lever or the steering wheel. An unintentional touch is not intercepted by state-of-the-art driver assistance systems and usually leads to an exit from autonomous driving” (equates to for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state. As the quote shows the transition from one transmission state to the next in which an accidental transition was made wherein the system understand one immediately preceded the other. ))
Yet both fail to teach being a prior ego path.
Kegelman teaches being a prior ego path (Pg. 20 – [0074] – “As additional examples, limiting and/or reducing torque in a front vehicle may be caused by one or more of a front or read vehicle's: latitude, longitude, altitude, heading, speed, longitudinal and lateral acceleration, relative angle, type of load (e.g., type of materials a vehicle is carrying), position in a platoon, brake status, brake pressure, path history, path projection, travel plans, vehicle size vehicle type, brake type, current operating mode (at least partially autonomous or manual), map data, traffic information, GPS augmentation information ( e.g., delays from infrastructure), wheel speed, wheel torque, gross torque, net torque, amount of wind it is traveling in, amount of rain it is traveling in, amount of liquid on a road it is traveling on, infotainment system, suspension, axle weight(s), transmission status,” (equates to being a prior ego path as the quote shows the ego vehicle path history being in consideration as well as transmission states and thus both the prior ego path and a previously selected transmission status are considered when determining vehicle control.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar-Ehmann to include being a prior ego path as this allows traveling history of the host vehicle to be considered when actions for mitigating driver movement are deemed necessary.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include being a prior ego path as inclusion of the driving history of the host vehicle allows for a diverse understanding of the situation the vehicle is currently in wherein past data can be used to analyzed the true driving intention of the user better, therefor mitigating accidents within undesirable transmission states being selected.
Regarding Claim 13 Karandikar- Kerecsen teaches (Karandikar discloses the following limitations: ) The system of claim 10, further comprising determining the intended path based on an available path of the vehicle for the non-selected transmission state (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.” (equates to determining the intended path based on an available path of the vehicle for the non-selected transmission state as the quote shows the intention of the driver to go along a certain path but the transmission isn’t selected to go in said direction and thus the available path being the one intended isn’t currently possible.))
Yet Karandikar fails to teach being a prior ego path for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state.
Ehmann teaches for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state. (Pg. 1 – [0003] – “During these secondary activities, it can happen that the driver unintentionally touches a control device of the motor vehicle, in particular an accelerator pedal, the gear selector lever or the steering wheel. An unintentional touch is not intercepted by state-of-the-art driver assistance systems and usually leads to an exit from autonomous driving” (equates to for a prior driver-selected transmission state that immediately preceded the driver-selected transmission state. As the quote shows the transition from one transmission state to the next in which an accidental transition was made wherein the system understand one immediately preceded the other. ))
Yet both fail to teach being a prior ego path
Kegelman teaches being a prior ego path (Pg. 20 – [0074] – “As additional examples, limiting and/or reducing torque in a front vehicle may be caused by one or more of a front or read vehicle's: latitude, longitude, altitude, heading, speed, longitudinal and lateral acceleration, relative angle, type of load (e.g., type of materials a vehicle is carrying), position in a platoon, brake status, brake pressure, path history, path projection, travel plans, vehicle size vehicle type, brake type, current operating mode (at least partially autonomous or manual), map data, traffic information, GPS augmentation information ( e.g., delays from infrastructure), wheel speed, wheel torque, gross torque, net torque, amount of wind it is traveling in, amount of rain it is traveling in, amount of liquid on a road it is traveling on, infotainment system, suspension, axle weight(s), transmission status,” (equates to being a prior ego path as the quote shows the ego vehicle path history being in consideration as well as transmission states and thus both the prior ego path and a previously selected transmission status are considered when determining vehicle control.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Karandikar-Ehmann to include being a prior ego path as this allows traveling history of the host vehicle to be considered when actions for mitigating driver movement are deemed necessary.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include being a prior ego path as inclusion of the driving history of the host vehicle allows for a diverse understanding of the situation the vehicle is currently in wherein past data can be used to analyzed the true driving intention of the user better, therefor mitigating accidents within undesirable transmission states being selected.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 18 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-4 , “Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended to incorporate the recitations of prior claim 5. More specifically, for example, claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "taking, using the controller and in response to predicting the unintended motion, a mitigating action that is determined to inhibit movement of the vehicle along the ego path, wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions." However, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation against claim 5 because the alleged mitigating actions disclosed by Karandikar are alternative actions rather than the plurality of escalating mitigating actions recited in the claims. This can be seen not only by the plain language of the applied portions of Karandikar, but also by viewing and comparing Karandikar's usage of terms like "additional", "also," "can be", and "include." Karandikar is directed to detecting a mistakenly positioned gear shift (i.e., when the driver intends to move the vehicle in one direction when the vehicle is prepared to move in the opposite direction) and alerting the driver to the mistake. In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action applies 1 [0042] of Karandikar as disclosing the unamended portion of the element. (Action at p. 4) In particular, the Office Action recites the quotation: In the event, the conclusion is that the gear position is incorrect for movement of the vehicle in the direction desired by the driver. In this case, step 816 will alert the driver as previously described. The driver alert could also be in the form of physically affecting the operation of the motor vehicle. The physical affect could be the automatic application of brakes to stop the vehicle from moving. (Id. (quotations omitted).) The Office Action then states, "[T]he quote shows an alert or inhibition of driving being given when an unintended motion is detected." (Id.) In rejecting claim 5, the Office Action states, in rejecting claim 5, the Office Action applies the same portions of Karandikar, with the same exact quoted portion. (Id. at p. 6.) The Office Action then states, "the quote shows an initial alert being sent and a potential driver intervention concerning applying the brakes wherein an escalation is understood to be one from an audible alert to controlling the vehicle based on potential collision." (Id. (emphasis added)).
However, for at least the following reasons, Karandikar discloses using only alternative alerts rather than a plurality of alerts, let alone disclosing the claimed plurality of escalating mitigating actions. As stated by the Office Action's quoted portion, the described step "will alert the driver as previously described," but "the driver alert could also be in the form of physically affecting the operation of the motor vehicle." Karandikar at I [0042]. As can be seen, the actions are described as alternative actions rather than escalating actions. This distinction becomes even more clear when looking at Karandikar using this and similar language elsewhere in the disclosure. For example, as stated by Karandikar at 1 [0031], "As an alternate, this processing unit could also be [a] standalone unit specifically dedicated to the prevention of potential collisions as set forth in this invention." Id. (emphasis added). The description accompanying the very figure applied further supports this. Id. at T [0020] " alternate embodiment of the present invention."). Indeed, the only difference between the described alternatives, as seen is in the figures themselves, is the inclusion of a second "detect" step.
Further, Karandikar's use of "additionally" further illustrates that the applied interpretation goes against the disclosure. For example, in 1 [0005], Karandikar states, a "system additionally may include a sensing device and may include an electric motor that [uses information] from the sensing device", as well as stating, "The sensor device additionally may be in communication with an engine kill switch and the vehicle horn." Id. (emphasis added). In another example, 1 [0008] of Karandikar states, "Therefore, there is no need to install an additional monitor for displaying the GPS navigation information and the car rear image information, respectively." Id. Despite these clear disclosures, no such disclosure is made with respect to Karandikar's actions. This militates against a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Karandikar discloses using a plurality of actions, let alone the claimed plurality of escalating mitigating actions, without using improper hindsight gleaned from the present disclosure.
Yet further, the applied paragraph 1 [0042] states, "However, as previously discussed, the
position of the driver can also be a factor in determining whether the driver his placed the gear shift in the wrong position to move in the direction desired by the driver." Id. (emphasis added). That is, Karandikar makes a clear disclosure for features that are intended to be applied together in the very paragraph applied. This also militates against a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would find that Karandikar discloses using a plurality of actions, let alone the claimed plurality of escalating mitigating actions, without using improper hindsight gleaned from the present disclosure.
Moreover, even if Karandikar's disclosed actions could be applied as simultaneous actions rather than alternative actions, such a reading would still not disclose the claimed plurality of escalating mitigating actions. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand any alleged simultaneous actions as a plurality of actions, rather than the claimed plurality of escalating mitigating actions.
For at least these reasons, the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation against prior claim 5, now incorporated into amended claim 1. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the present rejection is improper and should be withdrawn, and an Action to that end is respectfully requested. As will discussed below, the remaining applied references, alone or in combination, fail to cure the deficiencies of Karandikar. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom, claims 2-9, are allowable, and an Action to that end is respectfully requested.
Independent claims 10 and 18 recite similar elements to claim 1. Thus, for at least similar reasons to those stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 10 and 18, as well as all claims depending therefrom, are allowable. Accordingly, an Action to that end is respectfully requested.” Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
B. Applicant argues on pages 4-6, “Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Karandikar in view of Ehmann (DE102019206981B4).
Claims 7-9, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious
over Karandikar and Ehmann in view of Olson (US 9,934,688).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly obvious over Karandikar
and Ehmann in view of Kegelman (US 2021/0046932).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness the prior art reference (or references when
combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985); see also MPEP 2142.
However, in the present instance, there is no prima facie case of obviousness because the
additional applied references, alone or in combination, fail to cure the deficiencies of Karandikar.
Ehmann is directed to detecting unintentional operation of a control device in a motor
vehicle that is operating at least partially autonomously and, more particularly, to prevent
unintended switching from autonomous to manual vehicle control by determining whether
actuation of control devices is intentional and/or unintentional. But, Ehmann does not appear to
disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the mitigating action is a plurality of escalating mitigating
actions as recited in the claims. Indeed, the most that Ehmann discloses, without the benefit of
improper hindsight using the present disclosure, is taking multiple actions simultaneously (e.g.,
ignoring an input received via a touchscreen and also deactivating the touchscreen for a period of
time). Thus, for at least these reasons, Ehmann fails to cure the deficiencies of Karandikar.
Olson is directed to autonomous vehicle operations and, more particularly, to determining
a trajectory for an ego vehicle in view of determined probable trajectories for surrounding
vehicles. But, Olson does not appear to disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the mitigating action
is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as recited in the claims. More specifically, there's
no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would believe any disclosure of Olson is
analogous to a mitigating action, let alone the plurality of escalating mitigating actions as recited
in the claims. Thus, for at least these reasons, Olson fails to cure the deficiencies of Karandikar
and/or Ehmann.
Kegelman is directed to autonomous vehicle operations and, more particularly, to
implementing convoying or platooning systems in autonomous vehicles that use shared sensor
data. But, Kegelman does not appear to disclose, teach, or suggest wherein the mitigating action
is a plurality of escalating mitigating actions as recited in the claims. There's no evidence that
one of ordinary skill in the art would believe any disclosure of Kegelman is analogous to a
mitigating action, let alone the plurality of escalating mitigating actions as recited in the claims.
Thus, for at least these reasons, Kegelman fails to cure the deficiencies of Karandikar, Ehmann,
and/or Olson.
For at least these reasons, there is no prima facie case of obviousness against any claim
because the remaining applied references, alone or in combination, fail to cure the deficiencies of
Karandikar. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the present obviousness rejections are
improper and should be withdrawn. Accordingly, an Action to that end is respectfully requested.” _ As to point B see point A
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The examiner notes that claims 5-8 distinguish themselves over the prior art by requiring the report be provided to, in the case of claim 5, a second probability of misalignment between the ego path and the intended path of the vehicle reaches a second predetermined threshold, the second predetermined threshold being higher than the first predetermined threshold, or, in the case of claim 6, Sis a metric representing a transmission gear state; t is a metric representing a time since last gear shift; te is a metric representing an eye-gaze duration in a direction of vehicle movement indicated by the selected transmission state, again in the case of claim 7, dris a metric representing a distance to road markings in front of the vehicle; drr is a metric representing a distance to road markings behind the vehicle; sr is a metric representing a road marking state; dais a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices in front of the vehicle; dtris a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices behind the vehicle st is a metric representing a traffic control device status; he is a metric representing a history of traffic device status changes; and hmis a metric representing a history of host vehicle motion.
The closest prior art for the claim 5 limitation is Ehmann (DE102019206981B4) determining, at a first time, a first probability of misalignment between the ego path and the intended path reaches a first predetermined threshold; (See at least Ehmann - Pg. 13 – [0033] – “The wing is ballasted so that the pivot axis lies largely in a vertical plane for laterally steering a streamer cable. The first wing portion, for example, can be ballasted with a material whose density is greater than that of water to urge it to ride below the streamer”)
For claim 5’s limitation of – “and determining, at a second time that is after the first time, a second probability of misalignment between the ego path and the intended path of the vehicle reaches a second predetermined threshold, the second predetermined threshold being higher than the first predetermined threshold” Ehmann teaches a first threshold in which a probability is determined to have been reached in which the vehicle is moving along an unintended path, but the prior art do not appear to explicitly disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest and determining, at a second time that is after the first time, a second probability of misalignment between the ego path and the intended path of the vehicle reaches a second predetermined threshold, the second predetermined threshold being higher than the first predetermined threshold.
Similarly The closest prior art for the claim 6 limitation is Ehmann (DE102019206981B4) wherein predicting unintended motion of the vehicle is a determination that a probability of an incorrect transmission state exceeds a predetermined threshold (Pg. 5 –[0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously. A threshold is defined, above which a deliberately triggered action is assumed. Such deliberately performed actions are carried out without restriction and lead to a departure from autonomous driving mode.” ) the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics. (Pg. 5 – [0015] – “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously.” & See Also Pg. 5 – [0017] – “By recording the actuation amplitude, it is also possible to infer a probability of the control device being actuated. For example, a sudden press of the accelerator pedal can be interpreted as an unintentional action if the environmental sensors and the driver's behavior do not indicate that strong acceleration corresponds to appropriate driving behavior in the current driving situation.” (equates to the probability of the incorrect transmission state including comparing probabilities for a plurality of driver-action metrics and a plurality of vehicle-based metrics as the first quote shows the driver action metrics being taken into consideration and the second quote showing the comparison between the driver action metrics and the vehicle driven metrics like the accelerator being depressed compared to the reaction of the user.) ) where: Pa is probabilities for driver-action metrics; (Pg. 5 - [0015] - " In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it Is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously." (equates to where: Pa is probabilities for driver-action metrics; as the quote shows the driver actions being accounted for within probability of path misalignment.) ) and ed is a metric representing a driver-attention state; (Pg. 5 - [0015] - " In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a probability value is determined which indicates how likely the operation by the driver was likely to have been carried out consciously. Based on the driver's movement, activity level, direction of gaze, or other parameters, it Is possible to estimate the probability that an action by the driver was triggered consciously or unconsciously." ) as is a metric representing an accelerator pedal command; (Pg. 5 – [0017] – “For example, a sudden press of the accelerator pedal can be interpreted as an unintentional action if the environmental sensors and the driver's behavior do not indicate that strong acceleration corresponds to appropriate driving behavior in the current driving situation.” ) t is a metric representing a time since last gear shift; (Pg. 4 – [0013] – “In this context, a control device means a motor vehicle's accelerator pedal, in particular a brake pedal or accelerator pedal, a steering wheel or steering lever and a gear selector lever.” & See Also Pg. 6 – [0021] –“ In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is provided that a time point is recorded at which an intended actuation of the control device is last inferred, and a probability value is determined based on the time interval between the last action classified as intended and the current action, indicating the probability that a conscious actuation of the control element takes place.” (equates to time since last gear shift as the first quote shows the control device being that of the gear selection lever and the second quote showing the time since the change or use of the control device and thus the gear selector lever.)) Sis a metric representing a transmission gear state; (Pg. 8 – [0027] – “When a control device 12 in the motor vehicle is activated, a probability value n is determined, which indicates the extent to which the activation is likely to have been carried out consciously by the driver 22” (the activation of the control device is the parameter used to set up the probability problem and thus the gear position is a metric within the probability problem shown above.))
and Okude (US 20150198449 A1) teaches Wd is weighing factors for the probabilities for driver-action metrics; PS is probabilities for vehicle-based metrics; and WS is weighing factors for the probabilities for vehicle-based metrics, (pg. 1 - abstract - "a weighting parameter acquisition unit that acquires at least two kinds of weighting parameters representing degrees of influences of at least a route traveling distance" & See Also Pg. 14 - [0047 & 0048] - " The weighting parameter creation unit 15 stores the weighting parameters a 0 , a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , through ak into the weighting parameter storage unit 16 (step S27… That is, the value of the route selection probability P 31 is "5/1 0". The route selection probability P32 for the route 32 is obtained as a ratio of the number of the trajectories belonging to the route 32" & See also Pg. 5 - [fig. 4] & See Also Pg. 10 -0 [0002] - " The probe car is a vehicle that includes on-board various devices such as various sensors and a communication device, collects data such as vehicle location, travel speed, " & See Also (Pg. [0037] - "In this case, location information acquisition unit 517 may acquire travel information such as brake information, operation information about operation of winkers, parking, steering or the like along with the location information and causes the acquired information to be stored as travel trajectory information in the position information storage unit 520" (equates to teaches Wd is weighing factors for the probabilities for driver-action metrics; PS is probabilities for vehicle-based metrics; and WS is weighing factors for the probabilities for vehicle-based metrics, as the quotes show weighting factors being determined for a plurality of the vehicle and driver based metrics wherein the driver based and vehicle metrics are gather from the probe data which contains speed, a vehicle metric and the steering a driver metric, and all weighting factors are gathered for a vehicle based probability metric as the route is selected fort eh vehicle to go along.)) bd is a metric representing a brake pedal command; (Pg. [0037] - "In this case, location information acquisition unit 517 may acquire travel information such as brake information, operation information about operation of winkers, parking, steering or the like along with the location information and causes the acquired information to be stored as travel trajectory information in the position information storage unit 520" ) and od is a metric representing a steering angle command. (Pg. [0037] - "In this case, location information acquisition unit 517 may acquire travel information such as brake information, operation information about operation of winkers, parking, steering or the like along with the location information and causes the acquired information to be stored as travel trajectory information in the position information storage unit 520" )
Natarajan (US 20220100184 A1) teaches using P= Sum(W_dP_d+W_sP_s) (Pg. 28 – [0063] – eqn 1 - Task Priority Parameter = W1X1 + WX2 + W3X3 + ... + WvXN ,)
For claim 6’s limitation of – “Sis a metric representing a transmission gear state; te is a metric representing an eye-gaze duration in a direction of vehicle movement indicated by the selected transmission state;” Ehmann teaches a usage of the driver eye gaze for the probability determination of the vehicle traversing the incorrect path but does not specify a variable in which the eye gaze is linked to the transmission state, and similarly does not teach the transmission state being incorporated into the probability determination only the driver attention being included, but the prior art do not appear to explicitly disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest te is a metric representing an eye-gaze duration in a direction of vehicle movement indicated by the selected transmission state.
Similarly The closest prior art for the claim 7 limitation is Olson (US 9,934,688 B2)
Olson (US-9934688-B2) teaches dea is a metric representing distances to obstacle grids in front of the vehicle; (Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14”)) dor is a metric representing distances to obstacle grids behind the vehicle; ((Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14”))) dnfis a metric representing a proximity of the intended path to objects in front of the vehicle; (Pg. 8 – [Col. 3 – lines 27-30] – “Let II be a discrete set of policies, where each policy captures a specific high-level driving behavior including a planned trajectory” & See Also Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14” (equates to dnfis a metric representing a proximity of the intended path to objects in front of the vehicle; as the problem for defining the trajectory in which the host stays a set distance away from the vehicle follows that the host intended path is a certain amount of space away from the object in the front direction)) d,r is a metric representing a proximity of the intended path to objects behind the vehicle; (Pg. 8 – [Col. 3 – lines 27-30] – “Let II be a discrete set of policies, where each policy captures a specific high-level driving behavior including a planned trajectory” & See Also Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14”) dais a metric representing a proximity of the ego path to objects in front of the vehicle; (Pg. 8 – [Col. 3 – lines 27-30] – “Let II be a discrete set of policies, where each policy captures a specific high-level driving behavior including a planned trajectory” & See Also Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14” (equates to dais a metric representing a proximity of the ego path to objects in front of the vehicle; as the quote shows the ego path of the host vehicle being determined in which the host is a prescribed distance away within the trajectory it is following along)) dar is a metric representing a proximity of the ego path to objects behind the vehicle; ((Pg. 8 – [Col. 3 – lines 27-30] – “Let II be a discrete set of policies, where each policy captures a specific high-level driving behavior including a planned trajectory” & See Also Pg. 8 – [Col. 4 – lines 16-25] - “The host vehicle 14 is programmed to define a traffic environment 10 which includes the host vehicle 14 and one or more non-host vehicles 16 within a predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 e.g., 100 meters of a front or rear of the host vehicle 14”) vis a metric representing a vehicle speed; (pg. 8 – [col. 4 – lines 30-32] – “Further, the predefined distance to the host vehicle 14 may be defined to depend on other conditions, e.g., a speed of the host vehicle” )
For claim 7’s limitation of – “dris a metric representing a distance to road markings in front of the vehicle; drr is a metric representing a distance to road markings behind the vehicle; sr is a metric representing a road marking state; dais a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices in front of the vehicle; dtris a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices behind the vehicle st is a metric representing a traffic control device status; he is a metric representing a history of traffic device status changes; and hmis a metric representing a history of host vehicle motion” Olson teaches a variety of other vehicle based metrics as well as the history of the travel paths of the non-host vehicles , but the prior art do not appear to explicitly disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest dris a metric representing a distance to road markings in front of the vehicle; drr is a metric representing a distance to road markings behind the vehicle; sr is a metric representing a road marking state; dais a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices in front of the vehicle; dtris a metric representing a distance to traffic control devices behind the vehicle st is a metric representing a traffic control device status; he is a metric representing a history of traffic device status changes; and hmis a metric representing a history of host vehicle motion.
Conclusion
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karandikar ( US8688365B2)- A method and system prevents accidental direction selection in a motor vehicle. The driver of the vehicle is alerted that the selected direction of the vehicle via the gear shift is opposite of the direction that the driver intends for the vehicle to move.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/30/26
Prosecution Insights