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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority to Application No. KR10-2024-0049186, filed on 04/12/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Costantino et al. (US 12039784 B1, hereinafter “Costantino”).
Regarding claim 1, Costantino discloses A method performed by an apparatus of a host vehicle (Costantino, see at least Figs. 1, 4-6, a method performed by system 400 of a host vehicle 102/400), the method comprising:
comparing a behavior of a target vehicle with a behavior of a trailer that is connected to the target vehicle (Costantino, see at least Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 11-67, col. 9, lines 1-46, col. 13, lines 28-40, comparing a behavior of a first portion 114(1) and a second portion 114(2) of a tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) in the environment, i.e. whether the semitrailer 108(1)/108(2) is an articulated object based on determining the first portion 114(1)/tractor and the second portion 114(2)/trailer are overlap and/or intersect with each other or comparing the size of a detected object to a threshold and tracking movement of the tractor and the trailer over time);
determining, based on the behavior of the target vehicle being different from the behavior of the trailer, that the target vehicle and the trailer are linked targets that affect each other (Costantino, see at least Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 51-67, col. 7, col. 8, lines 11-67, col. 9, lines 1-46, col. 15, lines 19-57, determining whether the trailer pivots relative to the tractor by predicting the tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) intends to turn to the first lane 106(1)/106(5) based on road conditions);
determining, based on the linked targets, a possibility of a collision between the host vehicle and the target vehicle to which the trailer is connected (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 10-44, col. 20, lines 63-67, col. 21-22, determining whether the host vehicle 102/402 may potential collide with tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) in the environment based on the predicted trajectories of the tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) from the prediction movement of the tractor and trailer); and
controlling, based on the possibility of the collision, an operation of the host vehicle (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 19, lines 44-67, col. 20, lines 1-5, determining an operation of the host vehicle, e.g. steering, propulsion, braking, to control the host vehicle following a route to avoid collision with objects in the environment or a path which brings the host vehicle to a safe stop avoiding all collisions and/or otherwise mitigating damage).
Regarding claim 9, Costantino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discuss above. Costantino further teaches wherein the comparing of the behavior of the target vehicle with the behavior of the trailer comprises:
comparing heading angles of the target vehicle and the trailer (Costantino, see at least col. 16, lines 50-60, determining an offset value of heading of the tractor and the trailer); and
comparing absolute speeds of the target vehicle and the trailer (Costantino, see at least col. 16, lines 50-60, determining an offset value of velocities of the tractor and the trailer).
Regarding claim 10, Costantino discloses A vehicle control apparatus of a host vehicle (Costantino, see at least Figs. 1, 4, a system 400 of a host vehicle 102/402), the vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a controller (Costantino, see at least Fig. 4, col. 17, lines 15-36, a vehicle computing device 404 may include one or more processors 416 and memory 418 communicatively coupled with the one or more processors 416); and
a speed controller (Costantino, see at least Fig. 4, col. 19-20, the vehicle computing device 404 may include one or more system controllers 428, which may be configured to control speed of the host vehicle 402 for steering, propulsion, or braking),
wherein the controller is configured to:
compare a behavior of a target vehicle with a behavior of a trailer that is connected to the target vehicle (Costantino, see at least Fig. 1, col. 8, lines 11-67, col. 9, lines 1-46, col. 13, lines 28-40, comparing a behavior of a first portion 114(1) and a second portion 114(2) of a tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) in the environment, i.e. whether the semitrailer 108(1)/108(2) is an articulated object based on determining the first portion 114(1)/tractor and the second portion 114(2)/trailer are overlap and/or intersect with each other or comparing the size of a detected object to a threshold and tracking movement of the tractor and the trailer over time);
determine, based on the behavior of the target vehicle being different from the behavior of the trailer, that the target vehicle and the trailer as linked targets that affect each other (Costantino, see at least Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 51-67, col. 7, col. 8, lines 11-67, col. 9, lines 1-46, col. 15, lines 19-57, determining whether the trailer pivots relative to the tractor by predicting the tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) intends to turn to the first lane 106(1)/106(5) based on road conditions);
determine, based on the linked targets, a possibility of a collision between a host vehicle and the target vehicle to which the trailer is connected (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 10-44, col. 20, lines 63-67, col. 21-22, determining whether the host vehicle 102/402 may potential collide with tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) in the environment based on the predicted trajectories of the tractor-trailer 108(1)/108(2) from the prediction movement of the tractor and trailer); and
control, based on the possibility of the collision, an operation of the host vehicle (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 19, lines 44-67, col. 20, lines 1-5, determining an operation of the host vehicle, e.g. steering, propulsion, braking, to control the host vehicle following a route to avoid collision with objects in the environment or a path which brings the host vehicle to a safe stop avoiding all collisions and/or otherwise mitigating damage).
Regarding claim 18, Costantino teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as discuss above. Costantino further teaches wherein the controller is configured to compare the behavior of the target vehicle with the behavior of the trailer by:
comparing heading angles of the target vehicle and the trailer (Costantino, see at least col. 16, lines 50-60, determining an offset value of heading of the tractor and the trailer); and
comparing absolute speeds of the target vehicle and the trailer (Costantino, see at least col. 16, lines 50-60, determining an offset value of velocities of the tractor and the trailer).
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, 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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costantino et al. (US 12039784 B1, hereinafter “Costantino”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Barrera (US 20240416899 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Costantino teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discuss above. Costantino further teaches wherein the determining of the possibility of the collision comprises: determining, based on the behavior of the target vehicle, an estimated future location of the trailer (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 18-46, “For example, the articulated object motion model 126 may output predicted states of a tractor (e.g., a first portion) and a trailer (e.g., a second portion) in the future based at least in part on filtering techniques that identify mathematical relationships between the portions (e.g., a front portion and a rear portion relative to a direction of travel) of the articulated object”).
Costantino fails to explicitly teach determining whether at least one of a current location of the target vehicle, a current location of the trailer, or the estimated future location of the trailer is in an interference zone located in front of the host vehicle within a threshold distance.
Barrera teaches, see at least Figs. 4B, 4C, 5J, 5K, 5L, par. [0220, 0280-0285, 0288], predicting future location of a trailer of a tractor-trailer by determining a trajectory of motion of the tractor-trailer, and determining an impact zone located in front of a host vehicle within a certain distance from the intersection based on the trajectory of motion of the tractor-trailer (Fig. 5L, par. [0279]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Costantino to incorporate the teachings of Barrera, (re claim 2) determining whether at least one of a current location of the target vehicle, a current location of the trailer, or the estimated future location of the trailer is in an interference zone located in front of the host vehicle within a threshold distance. This modification would allow to determine a collision avoidance action for the host vehicle to avoid the impact zone (par. [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Costantino teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as discuss above. Costantino further teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the possibility of the collision by: determining, based on the behavior of the target vehicle, an estimated future location of the trailer (Costantino, see at least Fig. 3, col. 9, lines 18-46, “For example, the articulated object motion model 126 may output predicted states of a tractor (e.g., a first portion) and a trailer (e.g., a second portion) in the future based at least in part on filtering techniques that identify mathematical relationships between the portions (e.g., a front portion and a rear portion relative to a direction of travel) of the articulated object”).
Costantino fails to explicitly teach determining whether at least one of a current location of the target vehicle, a current location of the trailer, or the estimated future location of the trailer is in an interference zone located in front of the host vehicle within a threshold distance.
Barrera teaches, see at least Figs. 4B, 4C, 5J, 5K, 5L, par. [0220, 0280-0285, 0288], predicting future location of a trailer of a tractor-trailer by determining a trajectory of motion of the tractor-trailer, and determining an impact zone located in front of a host vehicle within a certain distance from the intersection based on the trajectory of motion of the tractor-trailer (Fig. 5L, par. [0279]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Costantino to incorporate the teachings of Barrera, (re claim 11) determining whether at least one of a current location of the target vehicle, a current location of the trailer, or the estimated future location of the trailer is in an interference zone located in front of the host vehicle within a threshold distance. This modification would allow to determine a collision avoidance action for the host vehicle to avoid the impact zone (par. [0010]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (KR20220165293A) teaches to determine whether a tractor-trailer intends to identifying a lane change intention for another vehicle to enter the vehicle's lane in an adjacent lane ahead; obtaining location, speed, angle information, and length information of the other vehicle; estimating an expected occupied area of the other vehicle based on the location, the speed, the angle information, and the length information of the other vehicle; and outputting a collision risk warning with the other vehicle based on the expected occupied area.
Zhou et al. (WO2022127502A1) teaches to determine a dangerous area of a turning tractor-trailer vehicle based on wheel difference of the tractor-trailer. The wheel difference is calculated based on distance between the traction pin of the tractor-trailer and the real axle of the tractor and the curvature radius of the second lane. When the wheel difference is greater than or equal to a threshold, the area that the tractor-trailer will pass through is determined as the dangerous zone, and the point on the edge of the dangerous area that is closest to the host vehicle is used as the predicted collision position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656