DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 18th, 2024. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to KR10-2024-0084836 dated June 27th, 2024
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the controller”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20220383421 (hereinafter, “Grivel”).
Regarding claim 1 Grivel discloses a control method of a vehicle (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake”) including a processor (see at least [0074]; “ADAS systems can also be realized simply using application processors etc.)”), comprising:
under control of the processor, receiving, by the controller, a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) operation signal from at least one other vehicle via a communication module (see at least [0010]; “With inter-vehicle communication, for example, forward collision warning and avoidance, systems can send an emergency braking message to its following vehicles, or a vehicle can send Global Positioning System (GPS) data to the other vehicles in order to warn them of approaching vehicles beyond their range of view.”);
setting, by the controller, a restriction mode in which driving of the vehicle is restricted based on the FCA operation signal (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerating or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision); and
controlling, by the controller, the vehicle according to the set restriction mode (see at least [0010]; “the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerating or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision).
Regarding claim 2 Grivel discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Grivel discloses further comprising: under control of the processor, when the FCA operation signal is not received, determining that the at least one other vehicle is driving under normal conditions and setting, by the processor, the restriction mode to a zero restriction mode (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” if there is no risk of collision, no actions are made by the forward collision system this would include control of the distance between vehicles, vehicle speed and/or acceleration, or any other type of restriction).
Regarding claim 10 Grivel discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions to control a vehicle (see at least Fig. 1and [0074]; “These components can e.g. include a central processing unit (CPU), memory, input/output ports and secondary storage, e.g. alongside other components such as radio modems and a graphics processing unit (GPU)-all on a single substrate or microchip.”), wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) operation signal from at least one other vehicle via a communication module (see at least [0010]; “With inter-vehicle communication, for example, forward collision warning and avoidance, systems can send an emergency braking message to its following vehicles, or a vehicle can send Global Positioning System (GPS) data to the other vehicles in order to warn them of approaching vehicles beyond their range of view.”);
set a restriction mode in which driving of the vehicle is restricted based on the FCA operation signal (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerating or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision); and
control the vehicle according to the set restriction mode (see at least [0010]; “the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerate ng or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision).
Regarding claim 11 Grivel discloses a vehicle (see at least Fig. 2) comprising:
a communication module (see at least []; “Driver monitoring systems can alert drivers with noises, vibrations in the steering wheel, or flashing lights. In some cases, the car will take the extreme measure of stopping the vehicle completely; (M) 5G and V2X 217: The 5G ADAS features, with increased reliability and lower latency, provides communication between the vehicle and other vehicles or pedestrians, referred to as V2X (Vehicle-to-Everything). V2X denotes traffic networking technology, also called Car2x, with its variants Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Road (V2R), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V21), Vehicle-to-Network (V2N) and Vehicle-to-Person (V2P).”);
a memory configured to store instructions (see at least [0075]; “These components can e.g. include a central processing unit (CPU), memory, input/output ports and secondary storage,”); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (see at least [0075]; “These components can e.g. include a central processing unit (CPU), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) operation signal from at least one other vehicle via the communication module (see at least [0010]; “With inter-vehicle communication, for example, forward collision warning and avoidance, systems can send an emergency braking message to its following vehicles, or a vehicle can send Global Positioning System (GPS) data to the other vehicles in order to warn them of approaching vehicles beyond their range of view.”),
set a restriction mode in which driving of the vehicle is restricted based on the FCA operation signal (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerating or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision), and
control the vehicle according to the set restriction mode (see at least [0010]; “the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” the autonomous vehicle is forced to brake when a driver does not respond to a warning, the vehicle is restricted from accelerating or maintaining the same speed in favor of braking and avoiding the collision).
Regarding claim 12 Grivel discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Grivel discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that the at least one other vehicle is driving under normal conditions and set the restriction mode to a zero restriction mode when the FCA operation signal is not received (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” if there is no risk of collision, no actions are made by the forward collision system this would include control of the distance between vehicles, vehicle speed and/or acceleration, or any other type of restriction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grivel, as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, in view of US-20210300367 (hereinafter, “Yamashita”).
Regarding claim 3 Grivel discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Grivel does not disclose wherein setting the restriction mode comprising: under control of the processor, setting the restriction mode into one mode among a first restriction mode, a second restriction mode, or a third restriction mode based on the FCA operation signal.
Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein setting the restriction mode comprising: under control of the processor, setting the restriction mode into one mode among a first restriction mode, a second restriction mode, or a third restriction mode based on the FCA operation signal (see at least Fig. 5, it is determined at step S5 whether an object is detected in front of the vehicle, this corresponds to Applicant’s FCA operation signal as it indicates a risk of collision since there is an obstacle in the path of the vehicle. Once the detection of the object is determined as well as determination of brake light activation, it is decided what the restriction to the minimum distance should be as well as the restriction to the acceleration (see fig. 7 S203 and S202), see also [0133]; “the determination unit 103 of the vehicle control device 100 mounted on the vehicle 1 according to this embodiment sets a first acceleration as the maximum acceleration of the vehicle 1 at the time of acceleration suppression when the detected object is the preceding vehicle and the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is on,” [0137]; “Furthermore, the determination unit 103 sets a second acceleration as the maximum acceleration at the time of acceleration suppression when the detected object is the preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle 91 and the vehicle 1 is equal to or smaller than the fourth distance, and the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is off,” both braking control and acceleration control are types of travel restriction mode, therefore acceleration suppression with the second acceleration threshold corresponds to restriction mode 1, acceleration suppression with the first acceleration corresponds to restriction mode 2, and the braking control is restriction mode 3. Additionally, as written the use of the “or” statement only requires one of the modes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 4 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Grivel discloses further comprising: under control of the processor… controlling the vehicle such that a warning notice is issued to a driver (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” prior to execution of suppression of any vehicle controls a warning is output to the driver).
Grivel does not disclose when the first restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and not restricting acceleration of the vehicle.
Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches when the first restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and not restricting acceleration of the vehicle (see at least [0129]; “when the detected object is the preceding vehicle 91, the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is off…it is possible to cause the vehicle 1 to move forward in accordance with movement of the preceding vehicle 91 or cause the vehicle 1 to move forward when the vehicle 1 is warned by the following vehicle 92 by additionally easing the execution condition of the travel restriction control,” if the forward vehicle is not braking and the host vehicle is capable of moving forward from a stop this would mean acceleration is not prohibited when the forward vehicle is not braking, and [0139]; “acceleration suppression may be canceled substantially by setting a large value as the second acceleration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 5 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: under control of the processor, when the second restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is partially operated and controlling the vehicle such that acceleration of the vehicle is partially restricted (see at least [0145-0146]; “Furthermore, the brake light on/off determination processing in S9 and the processing of determining whether the brake light is on in S10 are similar to those of the first embodiment. [0146] When the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on ("Yes" at S10), the determination unit 103 sets the first acceleration as the maximum acceleration in acceleration suppression (S202),” if the light of the preceding vehicle is on, it is known that the vehicle is braking and the acceleration is set to a maximum acceleration, this corresponds to the acceleration being partially restricted because the vehicle is still capable of some acceleration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 6 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: under control of the processor, when the third restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is entirely operated, and controlling the vehicle such that acceleration of the vehicle is entirely restricted (see at least [0056]; “FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a positional relation between the vehicle 1 and a preceding vehicle 91 according to the first embodiment. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, it is assumed that the preceding vehicle 91 is positioned ahead of the vehicle 1, and the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 91 are stopped to wait for green of a traffic light, for example. In this case, when the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on and the vehicle 1 has started to move, automatic braking is applied,” the host vehicle is prohibited from accelerating when a forward vehicle is fully stopped a certain distance from the host vehicle and must brake instead, this corresponds to the acceleration being fully restricted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 13 Grivel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Grivel does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor to set the restriction mode into one mode among a first restriction mode, a second restriction mode, or a third restriction mode based on the FCA operation signal.
Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to set the restriction mode into one mode among a first restriction mode, a second restriction mode, or a third restriction mode based on the FCA operation signal (see at least Fig. 5, it is determined at step S5 whether an object is detected in front of the vehicle, this corresponds to Applicant’s FCA operation signal as it indicates a risk of collision since there is an obstacle in the path of the vehicle. Once the detection of the object is determined as well as determination of brake light activation, it is decided what the restriction to the minimum distance should be as well as the restriction to the acceleration (see fig. 7 S203 and S202), see also [0133]; “the determination unit 103 of the vehicle control device 100 mounted on the vehicle 1 according to this embodiment sets a first acceleration as the maximum acceleration of the vehicle 1 at the time of acceleration suppression when the detected object is the preceding vehicle and the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is on,” [0137]; “Furthermore, the determination unit 103 sets a second acceleration as the maximum acceleration at the time of acceleration suppression when the detected object is the preceding vehicle, the inter-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle 91 and the vehicle 1 is equal to or smaller than the fourth distance, and the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is off,” both braking control and acceleration control are types of travel restriction mode, therefore acceleration suppression with the second acceleration threshold corresponds to restriction mode 1, acceleration suppression with the first acceleration corresponds to restriction mode 2, and the braking control is restriction mode 3. Additionally, as written the use of the “or” statement only requires one of the modes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 14 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Grivel discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor … control the vehicle such that a warning notice is issued to a driver (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” prior to execution of suppression of any vehicle controls a warning is output to the driver).
Grivel does not disclose wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and not restrict acceleration of the vehicle.
Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and not restrict acceleration of the vehicle (see at least [0129]; “when the detected object is the preceding vehicle 91, the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 captured by the first image capture device 6a is off…it is possible to cause the vehicle 1 to move forward in accordance with movement of the preceding vehicle 91 or cause the vehicle 1 to move forward when the vehicle 1 is warned by the following vehicle 92 by additionally easing the execution condition of the travel restriction control,” if the forward vehicle is not braking and the host vehicle is capable of moving forward from a stop this would mean acceleration is not prohibited when the forward vehicle is not braking, and [0139]; “acceleration suppression may be canceled substantially by setting a large value as the second acceleration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 15 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is partially operated and control the vehicle such that acceleration of the vehicle is partially restricted when the second restriction mode is set (see at least [0145-0146]; “Furthermore, the brake light on/off determination processing in S9 and the processing of determining whether the brake light is on in S10 are similar to those of the first embodiment. [0146] When the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on ("Yes" at S10), the determination unit 103 sets the first acceleration as the maximum acceleration in acceleration suppression (S202),” if the light of the preceding vehicle is on, it is known that the vehicle is braking and the acceleration is set to a maximum acceleration, this corresponds to the acceleration being partially restricted because the vehicle is still capable of some acceleration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 16 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the preceding vehicle is entirely operated, and control the vehicle such that acceleration of the vehicle is entirely restricted when the third restriction mode is set (see at least [0056]; “FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a positional relation between the vehicle 1 and a preceding vehicle 91 according to the first embodiment. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3, it is assumed that the preceding vehicle 91 is positioned ahead of the vehicle 1, and the vehicle 1 and the preceding vehicle 91 are stopped to wait for green of a traffic light, for example. In this case, when the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on and the vehicle 1 has started to move, automatic braking is applied,” the host vehicle is prohibited from accelerating when a forward vehicle is fully stopped a certain distance from the host vehicle and must brake instead, this corresponds to the acceleration being fully restricted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grivel in view of Yamashita, as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, in further view of US-20180201188 (hereinafter, “Sakuma”).
Regarding claim 7 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Grivel discloses further comprising: under control of the processor, when the zero restriction mode or the first restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” if there is no risk of collision, no actions are made by the forward collision system this would include control of the distance between vehicles, vehicle speed and/or acceleration, or any other type of restriction).
Grivel does not disclose determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and controlling vehicle such that a time to collision (TTC) currently in use is continuously maintained.
Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and controlling vehicle such that a time to collision (TTC) currently in use is continuously maintained (see at least [088]; “As illustrated in FIG. 3, when the own vehicle is traveling with constant speed following the preceding vehicle, the time to collision TTC is infinity, the relative speed is 0, i.e., zero, and the relative distance also does not change” when the preceding vehicle does not decelerate the time to collision is maintained since both vehicles travel at a relative speed of 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel as modified by Yamashita with the time to collision of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of taking a safe driving action with sufficient time (see at least Sakuma; [0005]).
Regarding claim 8 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: under control of the processor, when the second restriction mode or the third restriction mode is set, determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated (see at least [0145-0146]; “Furthermore, the brake light on/off determination processing in S9 and the processing of determining whether the brake light is on in S10 are similar to those of the first embodiment. [0146] When the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on ("Yes" at S10), the determination unit 103 sets the first acceleration as the maximum acceleration in acceleration suppression (S202),” if the light of the preceding vehicle is on, it is known that the vehicle is braking and the acceleration is set to a maximum acceleration, this corresponds to the acceleration being partially restricted because the vehicle is still capable of some acceleration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Grivel in view of Yamashita does not teach determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated and controlling the vehicle based on a new time to collision (TTC) which is different from a TTC currently in use.
Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated and controlling the vehicle based on a new time to collision (TTC) which is different from a TTC currently in use (see at least [0089]; “Then, when the preceding vehicle starts decelerating at time t1 and the speed of the own vehicle does not change, the time to collision TTC gradually decreases. Further, the relative speed gradually decreases. For example, when the preceding vehicle decelerates with a nearly constant acceleration (that is, G), the relative speed decreases in a shape close to a linear line. Further, in this state, the relative distance decreases in a shape close to a quadratic curve,” a new TTC is calculated if the preceding vehicle decelerates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel as modified by Yamashita with the time to collision of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of taking a safe driving action with sufficient time (see at least Sakuma; [0005]).
Regarding claim 9 Grivel in view of Yamashita and Sakuma renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Grivel discloses further comprising: controlling driving of the vehicle at a time earlier than the TTC currently in use (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” driving of a vehicle is capable of being controlled at any point).
Regarding claim 17 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Grivel discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely,” if there is no risk of collision, no actions are made by the forward collision system this would include control of the distance between vehicles, vehicle speed and/or acceleration, or any other type of restriction).
Grivel does not disclose determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and control such that a time to collision (TTC) currently in use is continuously maintained when the zero-restriction mode or the first restriction mode is set.
Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is not operated and control such that a time to collision (TTC) currently in use is continuously maintained when the zero-restriction mode or the first restriction mode is set (see at least [088]; “As illustrated in FIG. 3, when the own vehicle is traveling with constant speed following the preceding vehicle, the time to collision TTC is infinity, the relative speed is 0, i.e., zero, and the relative distance also does not change” when the preceding vehicle does not decelerate the time to collision is maintained since both vehicles travel at a relative speed of 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel as modified by Yamashita with the time to collision of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of taking a safe driving action with sufficient time (see at least Sakuma; [0005]).
Regarding claim 18 Grivel in view of Yamashita renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Yamashita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated… when the second restriction mode or the third restriction mode is set (see at least [0145-0146]; “Furthermore, the brake light on/off determination processing in S9 and the processing of determining whether the brake light is on in S10 are similar to those of the first embodiment. [0146] When the brake light of the preceding vehicle 91 is on ("Yes" at S10), the determination unit 103 sets the first acceleration as the maximum acceleration in acceleration suppression (S202),” if the light of the preceding vehicle is on, it is known that the vehicle is braking and the acceleration is set to a maximum acceleration, this corresponds to the acceleration being partially restricted because the vehicle is still capable of some acceleration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel with the restriction modes of Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of performing smooth operation in consideration of a vehicle’s surroundings (see at least Yamashita; [0005-0006]).
Grivel in view of Yamashita does not teach determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated and control the vehicle based on a new time to collision (TTC), which is different form a TTC currently in use.
Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine that braking of the at least one other vehicle is operated and control the vehicle based on a new time to collision (TTC), which is different form a TTC currently in use (see at least [0089]; “Then, when the preceding vehicle starts decelerating at time t1 and the speed of the own vehicle does not change, the time to collision TTC gradually decreases. Further, the relative speed gradually decreases. For example, when the preceding vehicle decelerates with a nearly constant acceleration (that is, G), the relative speed decreases in a shape close to a linear line. Further, in this state, the relative distance decreases in a shape close to a quadratic curve,” a new TTC is calculated if the preceding vehicle decelerates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the vehicle control method of Grivel as modified by Yamashita with the time to collision of Sakuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of taking a safe driving action with sufficient time (see at least Sakuma; [0005]).
Regarding claim 19 Grivel in view of Yamashita and Sakuma renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, Grivel discloses further comprising: controlling driving of the vehicle at a time earlier than the TTC currently in use (see at least [0010]; “Forward collision warning systems provide warnings (visual, audible, haptic) to a driver when the occurrence of imminent crash with the leading vehicle is likely and the collision avoidance systems take action only if the driver fails to respond to the warning indicated, for example by applying a limited or full brake,” driving of a vehicle is capable of being controlled at any point).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170057412 teaches a system and method for adjusting vehicle stopping position based on speed and positioning of a lead vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
5/5/26
Prosecution Insights