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 .
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki, et al., US 2022/0118970 A1, in view of Monteuuis, et al., US 2023/0408642 A1.
As per Claim 1, Takaki teaches a vehicle control method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle (¶¶ 23-24), the vehicle control method comprising:
identifying a target approaching in a lateral direction of the vehicle (¶ 58; along path 650 of Figure 6); and
determining, based on a current position of the target, a primary lateral control time (¶ 50; based on “time steps”).
Takaki does not expressly teach: determining, based on the primary lateral control time, a collision overlap, wherein the collision overlap indicates what proportion of a lateral width of the vehicle is projected to overlap with a longitudinal width of the target; determining, based on the collision overlap, a secondary lateral control time; and adjusting, based on the secondary lateral control time, a traveling speed of the vehicle. Monteuuis teaches:
determining, based on the primary lateral control time, a collision overlap, wherein the collision overlap indicates what proportion of a lateral width of the vehicle is projected to overlap with a longitudinal width of the target (¶¶ 125-126; based on X positions of the vehicles);
determining, based on the collision overlap, a secondary lateral control time (¶ 96; via control system 452 of Figure 4); and
adjusting, based on the secondary lateral control time, a traveling speed of the vehicle (¶ 96; to “cause the control system 452 to automatically break the vehicle 404 so that it comes to a stop before making impact with the other vehicle” as in Figure 4).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to operate the vehicle of Takaki with a collision overlap measurement system such as Monteuuis teaches, in order to respond to a possible accident scenario without overcompensating.
As per Claim 2, Takaki further teaches:
determining, based on the current position of the target, a primary longitudinal control time (¶ 50; based on “time steps”);
determining, based on the collision overlap, a secondary longitudinal control time (¶ 36); and
adjusting, based on the secondary longitudinal control time, the traveling speed of the vehicle (¶ 79).
As per Claim 3, Takaki teaches that the adjusting of the traveling speed of the vehicle comprises: determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶ 37; after comparison with collision threshold 260 of Figure 2). Takaki does not expressly teach suspending, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold not being satisfied, transmitting at least one of a warning signal and a braking command. Monteuuis teaches suspending, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold not being satisfied, transmitting at least one of a warning signal and a braking command (¶ 127). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 4, Takaki teaches that the adjusting of the traveling speed of the vehicle comprises:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶ 37; after comparison with collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a warning signal (¶ 37; “hazard lights”).
As per Claim 5, Takaki teaches that the adjusting of the traveling speed of the vehicle comprises:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶¶ 36-37; as determined by collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a primary braking command (¶ 81).
As per Claim 6, Takaki teaches that the adjusting of the traveling speed of the vehicle comprises:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶¶ 36-37; as determined by collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a secondary braking command (¶ 81).
As per Claim 7, Takaki teaches that the determining of whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied comprises at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line (¶¶ 36-37; e.g., line 320 of Figure 3); or determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line.
As per Claim 8, Takaki teaches that the determining of whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied comprises at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line; or determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line (¶¶ 36-37; as per collision threshold 260 of Figure 2 and reference line 320 of Figure 3).
As per Claim 9, Takaki teaches that the determining of whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied comprises at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line; or determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line (¶¶ 36-37; as per collision threshold 260 of Figure 2 and reference line 320 of Figure 3).
As per Claim 10, Takaki teaches a vehicle control device (¶¶ 33-34) comprising:
a sensor (¶¶ 33-34);
a controller (¶ 31); and
a speed controller (¶¶ 42-43), wherein the controller is configured to:
identify, via the sensor, a target approaching in a lateral direction of a vehicle (¶ 58; along path 650 of Figure 6); and
determine, based on a current position of the target, a primary lateral control time (¶ 50; based on “time steps”).
Takaki does not expressly teach steps to: determine, based on the primary lateral control time, a collision overlap, wherein the collision overlap indicates what proportion of a lateral width of the vehicle is projected to overlap with a longitudinal width of the target; determine, based on the collision overlap, a secondary lateral control time; and adjust, via the speed controller and based on the secondary lateral control time, a traveling speed of the vehicle. Monteuuis teaches steps to:
determine, based on the primary lateral control time, a collision overlap, wherein the collision overlap indicates what proportion of a lateral width of the vehicle is projected to overlap with a longitudinal width of the target (¶¶ 125-126; based on X positions of the vehicles);
determine, based on the collision overlap, a secondary lateral control time (¶ 96; via control system 452 of Figure 4); and
adjust, via the speed controller and based on the secondary lateral control time, a traveling speed of the vehicle (¶ 96; to “cause the control system 452 to automatically break the vehicle 404 so that it comes to a stop before making impact with the other vehicle” as in Figure 4).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 11, Takaki teaches that the controller is further configured to: determine, based on the current position of the target, a primary longitudinal control time (¶ 50; based on “time steps”);
determine, based on the collision overlap, a secondary longitudinal control time (¶ 36); and
adjust, via the speed controller and based on the secondary longitudinal control time, the traveling speed of the vehicle (¶ 79).
As per Claim 12, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the traveling speed of the vehicle by: determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶ 37; after comparison with collision threshold 260 of Figure 2). Takaki does not expressly teach suspending, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold not being satisfied, transmitting at least one of a warning signal and a braking command. Monteuuis teaches suspending, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold not being satisfied, transmitting at least one of a warning signal and a braking command (¶ 127). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 13, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the traveling speed of the vehicle by:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶ 37; after comparison with collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a warning signal (¶ 37; “hazard lights”).
As per Claim 14, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the traveling speed of the vehicle by:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶¶ 36-37; as determined by collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a primary braking command (¶ 81).
As per Claim 15, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the traveling speed of the vehicle by:
determining, based on the secondary lateral control time and the secondary longitudinal control time, whether a lateral control time threshold and a longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied (¶¶ 36-37; as determined by collision threshold 260 of Figure 2); and
transmitting, based on at least one of the lateral control time threshold or the longitudinal control time threshold being satisfied, a secondary braking command (¶ 81).
As per Claim 16, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to determine whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied by at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line (¶¶ 36-37; e.g., line 320 of Figure 3); or determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line.
As per Claim 17, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to determining of whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied by at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line; and determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line (¶¶ 36-37; as per collision threshold 260 of Figure 2 and reference line 320 of Figure 3).
As per Claim 18, Takaki teaches that the controller is configured to determine whether the lateral control time threshold and the longitudinal control time threshold are satisfied by at least one of: determining that the lateral control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a front edge of the target has passed through a reference line; and determining that the longitudinal control time threshold is satisfied based on the current position of the target indicating that a nearest point, on the target, to the vehicle has passed through the reference line (¶¶ 36-37; as per collision threshold 260 of Figure 2 and reference line 320 of Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights