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
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. This communication is the First 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 the by 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.
Examiner’s Note: The claims as presented are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The following is a review of major issues of indefiniteness. However, with the large amount of indefiniteness errors in the claims this may not be a complete list. Further, once the cited errors are corrected, the corrections may very well bring up further questions of indefiniteness in the claims. Therefore, the Office recommends a complete review of the entirety of the presented claims.
In regards to claims 1: Applicant claims
a memory configured to store a parameter associated with speed-based distance adjustment; and
a processor, by executing program instructions, configured to:
determine, based on the parameter and a speed of the vehicle, at least one distance between the vehicle and at least one target, wherein the at least one distance is a varying distance based on the speed of the vehicle,
Kinematically, the (instantaneous) distance between a vehicle and a target is not relative to vehicle speed or a parameter associated with speed-based distance adjustment, as claimed. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claimed distance is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1-20: Applicant claims the use of a plurality of distances without proper delineation between them. Further, in view of Applicant disclosure, a plurality of these distances appear to refer to the same distance:
Claim 1: determine, based on the parameter and a speed of the vehicle, at least one distance between the vehicle and at least one target, wherein the at least one distance is a varying distance based on the speed of the vehicle,
Claim 1: wherein the sidewalk is within a threshold distance from a road on which the vehicle is traveling;
Claim 2: a distance detected by a sensor,
Claim 2: a predetermined longitudinal distance from the vehicle,
Claim 2: a predetermined lateral distance from the vehicle,
Claim 4: identifying 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;
Claim 4: identifying 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;
Claim 4: identifying 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;
Claim 4: identifying 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; or
Claim 7: determine the target speed for the at least one target based on a distance separating the at least one target laterally from the vehicle
It is therefore unclear as claimed if these distances have proper antecedent basis to each other, if these distances are further limiting previously claimed distances and/or how these distances overlap or relate. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1-20: Similarly, Applicant claims a plurality of parameters without proper delineation between them, and are indefinite for the same or similar reasons as the plurality of distances above:
Claim 1: a memory configured to store a parameter associated with speed-based distance adjustment;
Claim 2: a predetermined parameter corresponding to the speed of the vehicle.
Claim 3: a predetermined parameter corresponding to the longitudinal speed of the at least one target.
Claim 8: the processor is configured to determine the start point based on the predetermined parameter and the speed of the vehicle.
In regards to claims 2, 4, 16 and 18: Applicant claims a plurality of optional claim language in claims 2 and 16, and then further limits optional claim language in dependent claims 4 and 18 which depend upon claims 2 and 16, respectively, also using optional claim language. This plurality of optional claim limitations stacked upon optional claim limitations generates confusion as to the metes and bounds of the claims. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claims 11 and 20: Claims 11 and 20 claim 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. However, the plurality of start points is optionally claimed. Therefore the metes and bounds of this controlling is unclear and indefinite. Corrective action or clarification is required.
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 20210114589 A1) herein Huth, in view of Nagata et al. (US 20150142285 A1) herein Nagata.
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, 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 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 a processor, by executing program instructions, (see [0012]-[0015], [0032] “control unit) configured to:
determine, based on the parameter and a speed of the vehicle, at least one distance between the vehicle and at least one target, wherein the at least one distance is a varying distance based on the speed of the vehicle, (see at least Fig. 1 “safety space 9” 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, based on the at least one distance, a risk area among a plurality of risk areas, (see at least [0036] “first evaluation unit 21 may alternatively be configured to set the width of the first safety space 9 and the width of the second safety space 10” and “The lower threshold of 30 cm serves to ensure perfect system efficiency, i.e. reacting in good time and initiating safety-related actions for avoiding a possible collision of the motor vehicle 2 with the object 3”) wherein at the least one target is located in the risk area, (see at least [0040] “an object 3 has been detected within the first safety space 9”) 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 2, Nagata 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 at least one of:
the speed of the vehicle, (see at least [0013], [0035], [0046], [0054])
a distance detected by a sensor, (optional)
a predetermined longitudinal distance from the vehicle, (optional)
a predetermined lateral distance from the vehicle, (optional)
or a predetermined parameter corresponding to the speed of the vehicle. (see at least [0013], [0035], [0046], [0054])
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 predetermined 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])
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, as best understood, 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 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 claim 21.)
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 predetermined 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, as best understood, Huth discloses the following:
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to:
calibrate the predetermined 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 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, as best understood, 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 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huth in view of Nagata, as applied, in further view of Clarke et al. (US 20150151742 A1) herein Clarke.
Examiner’s Note: As best understood, claims 4 and 18 further limit optional claim language of claims 2 and 16, and are therefore also optional. However, the Examiner provides the following art rejections of claims 4 and 18 for the sake of compact prosecution only.
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 perform at least one of:
identifying 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”)
identifying 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; (optional)
identifying 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; (optional)
identifying 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; (optional)
or identifying 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. (optional)
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: Claim 18 is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 4, and is therefore interpreted and rejected as claim 4, above.
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, as best understood, 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 at least one of:
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:
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”)
or 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.
Conclusion
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
March 20, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669