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 the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on July 24, 2026. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 13-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1 and 15: Applicant has defined a boundary line for defining a plurality of risk areas and a risk area among the plurality of risk areas based on a Time-Gap parameter and a speed of the vehicle. Wherein the claimed Time-Gap parameter includes the distance (i.e. “gap”) measured between the vehicle and the boundary line dividing the risk areas.
However, the Applicant then further claims: wherein the plurality of risk areas are generated by dividing a sidewalk into a plurality of areas, and wherein the sidewalk is within a threshold distance from a road on which the vehicle is travelling;
This is indefinite because:
First, due to nomenclature errors, it is unclear if the claimed plurality of risk areas (defined by vehicle speed and Time-Gap parameter) and plurality of areas (as defined by dividing a sidewalk) that generate the plurality of risk areas are the same plurality of (risk?) areas, of if they are patentably different but related areas.
Applicant disclosure provides support for subdividing a sidewalk into risk areas, (see published disclosure [0057]-[0058]) therefore they are assumed to be the same area for the sake of compact prosecution.
It is further unclear if the plurality of (risk?) areas are based/defined by the distance from the vehicle, or the location/locations of the portions of the sidewalk. These two definitions produce two different risk area geometries that are distinctly different and incompatible, and therefore they are unclear and indefinite.
In other words, it is unclear if the areas are subdivided into risk areas that radiate outward from the vehicle and merely includes a sidewalk that includes the risk areas, or if the risk areas are subdivisions of the sidewalk, based on vehicle speed, that are independent of vehicle position.
If the latter is intended by applicant, it should be noted that the metes and bounds of the claimed Time-Gap parameter are also indefinite, because the claimed “gap” is unclear and indefinite as to what it is referring too.
It is noted that Applicant disclosure Figs. 5 and 6 show/define risk areas radiating laterally from the vehicle location, and accompanying descriptions of Figs. 5 and 6 are described as “a plurality of risk areas, into which a sidewalk close to a road on which the vehicle “M” is traveling is divided” (see published disclosure [0209] and [0222]), statements which support the former interpretation. Applicant should note that the former interpretation renders the claimed generating of the plurality of risk areas… by dividing a sidewalk into a plurality of areas is unclear and indefinite.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth et al. (US 20150032288 A1) herein Huth, in view of Nagata et al. (US 20150142285 A1) herein Nagata.
In regards to Claim 1, Huth discloses the following:
1. An apparatus for controlling a vehicle, (see abstract, [0004] “motor vehicle” and “control unit for dynamically adapting the monitored driving path in dependence or as a function of vehicle parameters”) the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store a Time-Gap parameter associated with speed-based distance adjustment; (see [0032] “control unit is configured to enlarge a driving envelope 8 about a first safety space 9 laterally adjacent thereto, a second safety space 10 laterally adjacent to the first safety space 9 and an approach space 11 laterally adjacent to the second safety space 10” and [0006] “time to a possible collision” and [0011] “the point in time of an estimated collision of a motor vehicle with an object and therefore the time period which is available after detecting a possible collision of a motor vehicle with an object for initiating safety-related actions is dependent, apart from vehicle speed, also from the speed of the moving object.”)
The safety space of Huth is equivalent to the claimed Time-Gap parameter associated with speed-based distance adjustment because it is derived from a quantity having units of time multiplied by the current vehicle speed. Huth explains that the dynamically adapted driving envelope is selected based on vehicle speed such that the system has sufficient time to react to a possible collision.
Huth discloses the following:
and a processor, by executing program instructions, (see [0012]-[0015], [0032] “control unit) configured to:
determine, based on the Time-Gap parameter and a speed of the vehicle, a boundary line for defining a plurality of risk areas, wherein the boundary line varies based on the speed of the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1 “safety space 9/10/11” and [0035] “a first evaluation unit 21 configured to set a width of the first safety space 9 and a width of the second safety space 10 to a maximum value based on a predetermined minimum value, (e.g., 30 cm) and a value proportional to a current vehicle speed (e.g., 1 cm per km/h). Therefore the widths of the first and the second safety spaces 9 and 10 can be set to respectively 30 cm for a vehicle speed of 30 km/h or less as well as for example to 50 cm for a vehicle speed of 50 km/h.”)
identify, among the plurality of risk areas, a risk area in which at least one target is located based on a location of the at least one target relative to the boundary line, (see at least [0040] “in case an object 3 has been detected within the first safety space 9…” and “in case an object 3 has been detected within the second safety space 10…”, see also [0041] “in case the object 3 has been detected within the approach space 11 and is moving towards the second safety safe 10”)
wherein the plurality of risk areas are generated by dividing a sidewalk into a plurality of areas, (see at least Fig. 1 “safety space 9”, safety space 10” and “approach space 11”) and wherein the sidewalk is within a threshold distance from a road on which the vehicle is traveling; (see at least [0017] “a sidewalk was detected within the respective zone. A sidewalk is part of a traffic area of a road, which as a rule is separated from a roadway by a curb and/or a grass verge or parkway that runs parallel to the road, and is provided for pedestrians.” and “if a sidewalk is detected, the widths of the zones may be reduced by 20 cm, provided the chosen value for the width can never be lower than 30 cm.”)
Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
determine a start point of a segment associated with the risk area and determine an end point of the segment associated with the risk area, wherein a target speed is set for the risk area; (see at least [0010] “the target speed determining unit may determine the target speed further on the basis of a safe-condition confirmation start point that is set to a second predetermined position before the safe-condition confirmation end point in the travel direction of the host vehicle”, see also [0039] “safe-condition confirmation start point SP”, “deceleration start point DP” and “safe-condition confirmation end point CP”)
and control the speed of the vehicle from the start point such that the speed of the vehicle reaches the target speed at the end point. (see at least Fig. 8, points DP and SP and [0039] “deceleration start point DP” and “confirmation start point SP”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 3, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the start point and the end point based on at least one of: the speed of the vehicle a longitudinal speed of the at least one target, or a second Time-Gap parameter corresponding to the longitudinal speed of the at least one target. (see at least [0009] and [0044]-[0050])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 5, Huth discloses the following:
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the plurality of risk areas, wherein boundaries of the plurality of risk areas expand as the speed of the vehicle increases, (see at least [0013], [0035], [0046], [0054])
Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
wherein the boundary line comprises a lateral boundary line and a longitudinal boundary line, (see at least Fig. 3B, L1, W1 and W2 and [0043], same)
wherein the lateral boundary line is associated with a width of the risk area, (see at least [0046] “W1” and “W2”)
and wherein the longitudinal boundary line is associated with a longitudinal length of the risk area.(see at least previous citations, see also [0048] “L2”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 6, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to divide at least one risk area of the plurality of risk areas into:
a first risk segment that is within a specific longitudinal distance from the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 8 and [0039] “deceleration start point DP” and “confirmation start point SP”)
and a second risk segment that is outside the specific longitudinal distance from the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 8 and [0039] “safe-condition confirmation end point CP”)
Huth discloses the following:
and wherein a width of the at least one risk area in the second risk segment becomes narrower as the at least one risk area is farther away from the vehicle. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0032] “control unit is configured to enlarge a driving envelope 8 about a first safety space 9 laterally adjacent thereto, a second safety space 10 laterally adjacent to the first safety space 9 and an approach space 11 laterally adjacent to the second safety space 10”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 7, Huth discloses the following:
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the target speed for the at least one target based on a lateral distance separating the at least one target laterally from the vehicle and based on the risk area in which the at least one target is located. (see at least [0010], [0012] “means for detecting a speed of the object” and [0037] “current speed of the object 3”, see also [0041] “in case the object 3 has been detected within the approach space 11 and is moving towards the second safety safe 10”)
In regards to Claim 8, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the start point based on the Time-Gap parameter and the speed of the vehicle. (see at least [0009] and [0044]-[0050])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 9, Huth discloses the following:
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to:
calibrate the Time-Gap parameter based on at least one of:
a first weight according to a lateral speed of the at least one target, (see at least [0010], [0012] “means for detecting a speed of the object” and [0037] “current speed of the object 3”, see also claim 21.)
or a second weight according to the risk area; (optional)
As best understood, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
and determine the start point based on the calibrated Time-Gap parameter. (see at least [0009] and [0044]-[0050])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 10, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control an acceleration of the vehicle such that a rate of change in the acceleration of the vehicle is less than a rate of change in a deceleration of the vehicle, thereby enabling control of the speed of the vehicle from the start point so that the speed of the vehicle reaches the target speed at the end point. (see at least [0055] “target speed profile computing unit 23 sets a target acceleration a (<0), and sets the deceleration start point DP such that it is possible to decelerate from the current speed V of the host vehicle to the target minimum speed Va by the time when the host vehicle reaches the safe-condition confirmation start point SP”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 13, Huth is silent, but Nagata teaches the following:
13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
control the speed of the vehicle such that the speed of the vehicle is maintained at the target speed until the vehicle reaches a point at which the at least one target is located relative to the end point; and control the speed of the vehicle such that the speed of the vehicle reaches a speed different from the target speed after the vehicle has passed the point at which the at least one target is located. (see at least Fig. 8 “safe-condition confirmation section II”, see also previous citations)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Nagata with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of supporting driving so as to avoid a collision with an object when the movable range of the object overlaps with the predicted travel direction of the host vehicle, (Nagata, [0005]) especially when there is a presence of a sidewalk. (Nagata, [0056])
In regards to Claim 14, Huth discloses the following:
14. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a Time-Gap parameter expressed in units of time. (see [0006] “time to a possible collision” and [0011] “the point in time of an estimated collision of a motor vehicle with an object and therefore the time period which is available after detecting a possible collision of a motor vehicle with an object for initiating safety-related actions is dependent, apart from vehicle speed, also from the speed of the moving object.”)
In regards to Claim 15-17 and 19: Claims 15-17 and 19 are less limiting methods performed by the apparatus of claims 1-3 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected the same or similar to claims 1-3 and 6, above.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth in view of Nagata, as applied, in further view of Igarashi et al. (US 20200239021 A1) herein Igarashi.
In regards to Claim 2, Huth discloses the following:
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to divide the sidewalk into the plurality of areas based on:
the speed of the vehicle, (see at least [0013], [0035], [0046], [0054])
a sensor-detected distance detected by a sensor, (see at least [0030] “sensors 4 preferably include short-range radar with frontal detection area, long-range radar with frontal detection area as well as a camera with frontal detection area. The further sensors 5 preferably include lateral radar with lateral detection area.” and [0017] “For example, if a sidewalk is detected, the widths of the zones may be reduced by 20 cm, provided the chosen value for the width can never be lower than 30 cm. The third evaluation unit may be configured to reduce the respective zone only on that side of the motor vehicle on which the curb was detected so that the widths of individual zones on opposite sides of the vehicle may include different values.”)
Huth is silent, but Igarashi teaches the following:
a predetermined longitudinal distance from the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 4 and [0060] “in FIG. 4, the electric vehicle 1 serving as the host vehicle is traveling in the middle of a sidewalk… imaging range A is divided into a plurality of regions each constituting the above-described risk level region. The imaging range A is divided into six regions according to the distance from the electric vehicle 1.”)
Huth discloses the following:
a predetermined lateral distance from the vehicle, (see at least [0013], [0035] “predetermined 30 cm minimum width”)
and a first Time-Gap parameter corresponding to the speed of the vehicle. (see [0032] “control unit is configured to enlarge a driving envelope 8 about a first safety space 9 laterally adjacent thereto, a second safety space 10 laterally adjacent to the first safety space 9 and an approach space 11 laterally adjacent to the second safety space 10” and [0006] “time to a possible collision” and [0011] “the point in time of an estimated collision of a motor vehicle with an object and therefore the time period which is available after detecting a possible collision of a motor vehicle with an object for initiating safety-related actions is dependent, apart from vehicle speed, also from the speed of the moving object.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Igarashi with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing a collision while an electric vehicle travels when the obstacle (a person, a bicycle, or the like) is coming from front. (Igarashi, [0006])
In regards to Claim 16: Claim 16 is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 2, and is therefore interpreted and rejected as claim 2, above.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth in view of Nagata and Igarashi, as applied, in further view of Clarke et al. (US 20150151742 A1) herein Clarke.
In regards to Claim 4, Huth is silent, but Clarke teaches the following:
4. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a longitudinal distance of the risk area, wherein the longitudinal distance is a greater of the longitudinal distance from the vehicle and the distance detected by the sensor; (see at least [0333] “Multi-Threshold Reaction Zone for Vehicle Navigation”, [0334] “if system 100 detects the presence of another vehicle ahead of vehicle 200 that is traveling at a rate of speed slower than vehicle 200, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 to reduce its speed by braking.”, [0337] “predetermined threshold (e.g., within five meters)” and [0342] “In a second reaction zone associated with the second threshold, system 100 may place target vehicle 200b in a safety zone”)
Huth discloses the following:
identify a first risk area among the plurality of risk areas, based on a point separated from the vehicle by the longitudinal distance of the risk area and a first point laterally separated from the vehicle by a first distance; (see at least [0007], [0032], [0035] “first safety space adjacent thereto, a second safety space”, “safety space 9” and “safety space 10”)
identify a second risk area among the plurality of risk areas, based on the point and a second point separated from the first point by a second distance; (see at least [0007], [0032], [0035] “first safety space adjacent thereto, a second safety space”, “safety space 9” and “safety space 10”)
identify a third risk area among the plurality of risk areas, based on the point and a third point separated from the second point by a third distance; (see at least [0032], [0037] “approach space 11”)
and identify a fourth risk area among the plurality of risk areas, wherein the fourth risk area is a remaining area after excluding the first to third risk areas from the plurality of risk areas. (suggested at least at [0007], [0032], [0044] “control unit may be configured to enlarge the driving envelope even further to include more than three zones.”)
Clarke further teaches the above limitation. (see at least [0343] “third reaction zone”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clarke with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing for autonomous driving systems to recognize objects in a vehicle's environment, such as other vehicles and pedestrians, and take appropriate and timely action to avoid collisions. (Clarke, [0005])
In regards to Claim 18, Huth is silent, but Clarke teaches the following:
18. The method of claim 16, wherein the dividing the sidewalk comprises identifying a longitudinal distance of the risk area, wherein the longitudinal distance is a greater of the longitudinal distance from the vehicle and the sensor-detected distance detected by the sensor. (see at least [0333] “Multi-Threshold Reaction Zone for Vehicle Navigation”, [0334] “if system 100 detects the presence of another vehicle ahead of vehicle 200 that is traveling at a rate of speed slower than vehicle 200, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 to reduce its speed by braking.”, [0337] “predetermined threshold (e.g., within five meters)” and [0342] “In a second reaction zone associated with the second threshold, system 100 may place target vehicle 200b in a safety zone”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Clarke with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing for autonomous driving systems to recognize objects in a vehicle's environment, such as other vehicles and pedestrians, and take appropriate and timely action to avoid collisions. (Clarke, [0005]).
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth in view of Nagata, as applied, in further view of Pontisakos et al. (US 20210101588 A1) herein Pontisakos.
In regards to Claim 11, Huth discloses the following:
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, based on detecting a plurality of targets within the plurality of risk areas,
determine a plurality of target speeds for the plurality of targets, wherein each of the plurality of targets corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of target speeds, (see at least [0010], [0012] “means for detecting a speed of the object” and [0037] “current speed of the object 3”, see also claim 21, obvious duplication of parts.)
This limitation is also taught by Pontisakos. (see below)
Huth is silent, but Pontisakos teaches the following:
determine a plurality of start points for the plurality of targets, wherein each of the plurality of targets corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of start points, (see at least Fig. 2, “vehicle 101” and “targets 200a, 200b, 200c, 200d, 200e, 200f, 200g, and 200h” and [0054] computer 105 can identify the targets 200 as vulnerable road users… e.g., pedestrians, cyclists, moped users, wheelchair users, motorized scooter users, etc.” and [0056] “computer 105 can identify a heading angle θ for each target 200”)
and determine a plurality of end points for the plurality of targets, wherein each of the plurality of targets corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of end points; (optional)
and control the speed of the vehicle from a start point among the plurality of start points, wherein the start point is a point closest to the vehicle. (see at least [0067] “computer 105 can predict respective distances between the host vehicle 101 and each target 200”, [0074] “Each classification can have a different distance threshold that accounts for movement of the target 200 associated with the classification.”, and [0077] “lowest time to collision” and [0078] “computer 105 may determine… a brake threat number BTN” and “computer 105 can determine one of a deceleration to slow or stop the host vehicle 101 prior to the time to collision”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Pontisakos with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing vehicle collisions with a plurality of targets at an intersection (Pontisakos, [0001]), especially with a plurality of vulnerable road users (VRUs) with which a collision could result in more damage to the VRU than to the host vehicle. (Pontisakos, [0054])
In regards to Claim 12, as best understood, Huth is silent, but Pontisakos teaches the following:
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to control the speed of the vehicle such that the speed of the vehicle reaches a slower target speed between an n-th target speed associated with an n-th target and an (n+1)-th target speed associated with an (n+1)-th target, based on a start point associated with the (n+1)-th target being closer to a current location of the vehicle than an end point associated with the n-th target, (see at least [0067] “computer 105 can predict respective distances between the host vehicle 101 and each target 200”, [0074] “Each classification can have a different distance threshold that accounts for movement of the target 200 associated with the classification.”, and [0077] “lowest time to collision” and [0078] “computer 105 may determine… a brake threat number BTN” and “computer 105 can determine one of a deceleration to slow or stop the host vehicle 101 prior to the time to collision”)
and wherein the “n” is a natural number. (see at least Fig. 2, “vehicle 101” and “targets 200a, 200b, 200c, 200d, 200e, 200f, 200g, and 200h”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Pontisakos with the invention of Huth, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing vehicle collisions with a plurality of targets at an intersection (Pontisakos, [0001]), especially with a plurality of vulnerable road users (VRUs) with which a collision could result in more damage to the VRU than to the host vehicle. (Pontisakos, [0054])
In regards to Claim 20: Claim 20 is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 11, and is therefore interpreted and rejected as claim 11, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are not fully persuasive. While a plurality of rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) are withdrawn, several have been maintained, as detailed above.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. However, with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in this FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
October 9, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
