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 Konrardy, et al., US 2022/0244736 A1, in view of Oboril, et al., US 2022/0315052 A1.
As per Claim 1, Konrardy teaches a vehicle (¶ 69; vehicle 108 of Figure 1) comprising:
one or more sensors (¶¶ 69; sensors 120 of Figure 1) configured to detect at least one vehicle (¶¶ 69, 71; either “a radar unit, a LIDAR unit, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, [or] a camera”);
memory configured to store computer-readable instructions (¶ 76); and
a processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions (¶ 76; processor 162 of Figure 1), wherein the processor, by executing the computer-readable instructions, is configured to: set a lead vehicle, of the at least one vehicle, as a target vehicle, wherein the lead vehicle is traveling ahead of the vehicle (¶ 63; “to detect a slow-moving vehicle ahead”); and
receive, via the one or more sensors, driving information associated with the target vehicle (¶ 69; “a communication component 122 to transmit information to and receive information from external sources, including other vehicles”).
Konrardy does not expressly teach: determine, based on the driving information and a predetermined cut-out condition, a likelihood of the target vehicle cutting out of a lane; and control, based on the determined likelihood, the vehicle to operate in a safety control mode of a plurality of safety control modes. Oboril teaches:
determine, based on the driving information and a predetermined cut-out condition, a likelihood of the target vehicle cutting out of a lane (¶¶ 47, 49); and
control, based on the determined likelihood, the vehicle to operate in a safety control mode of a plurality of safety control modes (¶ 261).
At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the sensor system of Konrardy with the safety control system of Oboril, in order to avoid an overcorrection in response to a predicted risk of collision.
As per Claim 2, Konrardy teaches that the driving information indicates at least one of: a lateral position of the target vehicle, a lateral velocity of the target vehicle (¶ 74; taken from “lateral and longitudinal acceleration”), a lateral direction of the target vehicle, a path of the target vehicle, or a path of the vehicle (¶ 90).
As per Claim 3, Konrardy teaches that the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the lateral position of the target vehicle, a first movement index (¶ 74; taken from “lateral and longitudinal acceleration” for “assessing risk of an autonomous vehicle”);
determine, based on the lateral velocity of the target vehicle (¶ 91), a second movement index (¶ 90; “to determine adjustments to the controls of the vehicle”);
determine, based on the lateral direction of the target vehicle (¶ 91; based on “direction of movement”), a motion index (¶ 90; “determine whether adjustments are required to continue following the desired route”); and
determine, based on the path of the target vehicle and the path of the vehicle, a collision index (¶¶ 253-254).
As per Claim 4, Konrardy does not expressly teach that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode, wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode, and wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode by: based on the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, and the collision index satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the second safety control mode. Oboril teaches that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode (¶ 265; to control “a braking event of the vehicle”) and a second safety control mode (¶ 266; to control “an acceleration event of the vehicle”), wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; more urgently for “an acceleration event” than for “a braking event”), and wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode by: based on the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, and the collision index satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the second safety control mode (¶ 261). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 5, Konrardy does not expressly teach that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode, wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode, and wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode by: based on at least one of the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, or the collision index not satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the first safety control mode. Oboril teaches that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode (¶¶ 262-263; for a “hazard probability” as opposed to a “situational probability”), wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode (¶ 260; based on a “predefined hazard safety criterion”), and wherein the processor is configured to control the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode by: based on at least one of the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, or the collision index not satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the first safety control mode (¶ 261). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 6, Konrardy does not expressly teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is different from a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode. Oboril teaches that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is different from a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; different for “an acceleration event” as opposed to “a braking event”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 7, Konrardy does not expressly teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is less than a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode. Oboril teaches that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is less than a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; less for “an acceleration event” as opposed to “a braking event”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 8, Konrardy teaches that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode comprises: a collision warning time, a first emergency braking time (¶ 88; “autonomous braking for collision avoidance”), and a second emergency braking time (¶ 98; to avoid “collisions”), and that the processor is further configured to: change the collision warning time, the first emergency braking time, and the second emergency braking time, based on a distance between the target vehicle and a control target sensed after the target vehicle cuts out of the lane (¶ 90; “the controller 204 may receive sensor data indicating a decreasing distance to a nearby object in the vehicle's path and process the received sensor data to determine whether to begin braking (and, if so, how abruptly to slow the vehicle 108)”).
As per Claim 9, Konrardy teaches that the processor is further configured to: set, based on the lead vehicle and the vehicle traveling in the lane, the lead vehicle as the target vehicle (¶ 72; after receiving “information that an autonomous vehicle ahead of the vehicle 108 is reducing speed”).
As per Claim 10, Konrardy teaches a method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle (¶ 68), the method comprising:
detecting, via one or more sensors of the vehicle, at least one vehicle (¶¶ 69, 71; with either “a radar unit, a LIDAR unit, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, [or] a camera”);
setting a lead vehicle, of the at least one vehicle, as a target vehicle, wherein the lead vehicle is traveling ahead of the vehicle (¶ 63; “to detect a slow-moving vehicle ahead”); and
receiving, via the one or more sensors, driving information associated with the target vehicle (¶ 69; “a communication component 122 to transmit information to and receive information from external sources, including other vehicles”).
Konrardy does not expressly teach: determining, based on the driving information and a predetermined cut-out condition, a likelihood of the target vehicle cutting out of a lane; and controlling, based on the determined likelihood, the vehicle to operate in a safety control mode of a plurality of safety control modes. Oboril teaches:
determining, based on the driving information and a predetermined cut-out condition, a likelihood of the target vehicle cutting out of a lane (¶¶ 47, 49); and
controlling, based on the determined likelihood, the vehicle to operate in a safety control mode of a plurality of safety control modes (¶¶ 261).
See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 11, Konrardy teaches that the driving information indicates at least one of: a lateral position of the target vehicle, a lateral velocity of the target vehicle (¶ 74; taken from “lateral and longitudinal acceleration”), a lateral direction of the target vehicle, a path of the target vehicle, or a path of the vehicle (¶ 90).
As per Claim 12, Konrardy teaches:
determining, based on the lateral position of the target vehicle, a first movement index (¶ 74; taken from “lateral and longitudinal acceleration” for “assessing risk of an autonomous vehicle”);
determining, based on the lateral velocity of the target vehicle (¶ 91), a second movement index (¶ 90; “to determine adjustments to the controls of the vehicle”);
determining, based on the lateral direction of the target vehicle (¶ 91; based on “direction of movement”), a motion index (¶ 90; “determine whether adjustments are required to continue following the desired route”); and
determining, based on the path of the target vehicle and the path of the vehicle, a collision index (¶¶ 253-254).
As per Claim 13, Konrardy does not expressly teach that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode, wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode, and wherein controlling the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode comprises: based on the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, and the collision index satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the second safety control mode. Oboril teaches that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode (¶ 265; to control “a braking event of the vehicle”) and a second safety control mode (¶ 266; to control “an acceleration event of the vehicle”), wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; more urgently for “an acceleration event” than for “a braking event”), and wherein controlling the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode comprises: based on the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, and the collision index satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the second safety control mode (¶ 261). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 14, Konrardy does not expressly teach that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode, wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode, and wherein controlling the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode comprises: based on at least one of the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, or the collision index not satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the first safety control mode. Oboril teaches that the plurality of safety control modes comprise a first safety control mode and a second safety control mode (¶¶ 262-263; for a “hazard probability” as opposed to a “situational probability”), wherein the second safety control mode requires a faster reaction of the vehicle than the first safety control mode (¶ 260; based on a “predefined hazard safety criterion”), and wherein controlling the vehicle to operate in the safety control mode comprises: based on at least one of the first movement index, the second movement index, the motion index, or the collision index not satisfying the predetermined cut-out condition, controlling the vehicle in the first safety control mode (¶ 261). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 15, Konrardy does not expressly teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is different from a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode. Oboril teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is different from a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; different for “an acceleration event” as opposed to “a braking event”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 16, Konrardy does not expressly teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is less than a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode. Oboril teach that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode is less than a brake control time associated with the first safety control mode (¶¶ 265-266; less for “an acceleration event” as opposed to “a braking event”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 17, Konrardy teaches that a brake control time associated with the second safety control mode comprises: a collision warning time, a first emergency braking time (¶ 88; “autonomous braking for collision avoidance”), and a second emergency braking time (¶ 98; to avoid “collisions”), and that the method further comprises: changing the collision warning time, the first emergency braking time, and the second emergency braking time, based on a distance between the target vehicle and a control target sensed after the target vehicle cuts out of the lane (¶ 90; “the controller 204 may receive sensor data indicating a decreasing distance to a nearby object in the vehicle's path and process the received sensor data to determine whether to begin braking (and, if so, how abruptly to slow the vehicle 108)”).
As per Claim 18, Konrardy teaches: setting, based on the lead vehicle and the vehicle traveling in the lane, the lead vehicle as the target vehicle (¶ 72; after receiving “information that an autonomous vehicle ahead of the vehicle 108 is reducing speed”).
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