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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/15/2025 and 03/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a collision warning device (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
The examiner has identified method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A collision warning device, wherein the collision warning device comprises a control apparatus comprising at least one of a microprocessor or a microcontroller which is configured
- to receive vehicle movement data which describe a movement of a vehicle of a vehicle-trailer combination, and
- to receive object movement data for at least one object in a surroundings of the vehicle-trailer combination, which object movement data describe a movement of the at least one object,
- to take the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the vehicle as a function of time and a current control value of a control parameter of the vehicle,
- to take the object movement data of the at least one object and the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to the vehicle as a function of time and the current control value of the control parameter of the vehicle,
- to take the movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to vehicle for the current control value of the control parameter as a basis for checking if the respective at least one object has met a predetermined relevance criterion,
- if relevance criterion is met, to take the movement equation for control values of a predefined control value range as a basis for ascertaining respective collision values of a collision parameter, relating to a predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
- to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the vehicle for the respective at least one object, which impact function assigns to the control values of the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
- to ascertain an overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination from the respective impact functions in relation to the vehicle for the at least one object, and
- to ascertain an optimum control value of the control parameter from the overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination according to an optimization method.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The bolded claims in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data to determine whether a possible collision will happen and decide what to do to avoid it.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A collision warning device, wherein the collision warning device comprises a control apparatus comprising at least one of a microprocessor or a microcontroller which is configured
- to receive vehicle movement data which describe a movement of a vehicle of a vehicle-trailer combination, and
- to receive object movement data for at least one object in a surroundings of the vehicle-trailer combination, which object movement data describe a movement of the at least one object,
- to take the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the vehicle as a function of time and a current control value of a control parameter of the vehicle,
- to take the object movement data of the at least one object and the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to the vehicle as a function of time and the current control value of the control parameter of the vehicle,
- to take the movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to vehicle for the current control value of the control parameter as a basis for checking if the respective at least one object has met a predetermined relevance criterion,
- if relevance criterion is met, to take the movement equation for control values of a predefined control value range as a basis for ascertaining respective collision values of a collision parameter, relating to a predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
- to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the vehicle for the respective at least one object, which impact function assigns to the control values of the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
- to ascertain an overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination from the respective impact functions in relation to the vehicle for the at least one object, and
- to ascertain an optimum control value of the control parameter from the overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination according to an optimization method.
Regarding the additional limitations of “- to receive vehicle movement data which describe a movement of a vehicle of a vehicle-trailer combination, and - to receive object movement data for at least one object in a surroundings of the vehicle-trailer combination, which object movement data describe a movement of the at least one object,” the examiner submits that this limitation is an example of mere data gathering. In particular, the receiving a destination as an input is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one of a microprocessor or a microcontroller”, but these are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because they are generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8 and 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims, further narrows the “receive” element of claim 1 that was considered to be mere data gathering. They also include the “take”, “ascertain”, and “parameter” elements of claim 1 that was considered to be a mental process; thus the description of such element does not take claim 2 out the realm of mental process. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 9 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitation “actuate an output device for outputting output signals…” in the context of the claim are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution and/or post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and data output
Dependent claims 10 and 12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitation “a sensor apparatus” and “vehicle” are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because they are generally linking additional elements to a technological environment, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f).
Regarding claim 13, it recites a method having substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above, therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Dependent claim 7, recites a further limitation that causes the claim to be patent eligible. The limitation “the control apparatus is configured to actuate the vehicle…” amounts to more than the judicial exception and puts the claim into a condition to be patent eligible.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a “computer program” that is not limited to tangible embodiments (i.e. a signal per se). A signal is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See, In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3rd 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, claim 14 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is dependent on claim 14 which is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. A non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes a computer program is a statutory category. However, since claim 15 is based on claim 14 that is directed to a non-statutory subject matter it is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. (US 20230365125 A1) in view of HRUSCHKA (CN 115195713 A) (All citations for HRUSCHKA will be based on the NPL translation).
Regarding claim 1,
Wi teaches:
A collision warning device, wherein the collision warning device comprises a control apparatus comprising at least one of a microprocessor or a microcontroller which is configured
(Wi – Paragraph [0019] states “by the controller and based on a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) function, at least one of: generating a warning signal, or controlling a braking device” Paragraph [0082] states “The controller 150 may include an image signal processor that is a processor 151 for processing the image data of the front and rear cameras 110 and 140 and/or a digital signal processor that processes the radar data of the radars 120 and 130, and/or a micro control unit (MCU) that generates a braking signal.”)
- to receive vehicle movement data which describe a movement of a vehicle of a vehicle-trailer combination, and
(Wi – Paragraph [0019] states “A method may comprise: obtaining, by a controller of a vehicle, image data associated with an image, wherein the image comprises a trailer being in proximity to the vehicle; obtaining, by the controller, radar data associated with the trailer; determining, by the controller and based on the image data and the radar data, whether the trailer is coupled to the vehicle; performing, by the controller and based on a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) function, at least one of: generating a warning signal, or controlling a braking device; and changing, by the controller and based on the trailer being coupled to the vehicle, at least one of: a timing of generating the warning signal, or an operation of the controlling the braking device.” Paragraph [0052] states “The front camera 110, the front radar 120, the corner radar 130, and the rear camera 140 may assist and realize advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) by recognizing an object, a lane, an obstacle, and the like. A trailer may be fastened to a vehicle (e.g., the vehicle 1).”)
- to receive object movement data for at least one object in a surroundings of the vehicle-trailer combination, which object movement data describe a movement of the at least one object,
(Wi – Paragraph [0052] states “The front camera 110, the front radar 120, the corner radar 130, and the rear camera 140 may assist and realize advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) by recognizing an object, a lane, an obstacle, and the like. A trailer may be fastened to a vehicle (e.g., the vehicle 1).” Paragraph [0067] states “The front radar data may include position information and a speed degree of an object located in front of the vehicle 1 (e.g., any other vehicle, a pedestrian, cyclist, etc.).”)
- to take the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the vehicle as a function of time and a current control value of a control parameter of the vehicle,
(Wi – Paragraph [0099] states “The controller 150 may obtain the coordinates of a plurality of detection points located on the sides of the trailer 2 by processing the radar data obtained through the rear radars 133 and 134, and obtains the rotation angle θ_k of the trailer 2 at one time point based on the coordinates of the center point having an average of the plurality of detection points. Referring to FIG. 4, the controller 150 may obtain the rotation angle θ_k at one time point based on a distance between the origin and the center point with the position of the rear camera 140 as the origin. For a detailed calculation process, refer to Equation 1 below”)
- to take the object movement data of the at least one object and the vehicle movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to the vehicle as a function of time and the current control value of the control parameter of the vehicle,
(Wi – Paragraph [0067-0068] states “The front radar data may include position information and a speed degree of an object located in front of the vehicle 1 (e.g., any other vehicle, a pedestrian, cyclist, etc.). The front radar 120 may calculate a relative distance to an obstacle based on a phase difference (and/or time difference) between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave, and calculate a relative speed of the obstacle based on the frequency difference between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave. The front radar 120 may transmit the front radar data to the controller 150.”)
- to take the movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to vehicle for the current control value of the control parameter
the vehicle-trailer combination from the respective impact functions in relation to the vehicle for the at least one object, and
- to ascertain an optimum control value of the control parameter from the overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination
(Wi – Paragraph [0067-0068] states “The front radar data may include position information and a speed degree of an object located in front of the vehicle 1 (e.g., any other vehicle, a pedestrian, cyclist, etc.). The front radar 120 may calculate a relative distance to an obstacle based on a phase difference (and/or time difference) between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave, and calculate a relative speed of the obstacle based on the frequency difference between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave. The front radar 120 may transmit the front radar data to the controller 150.”)
Wi teaches a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer. However, Wi does not teach the evaluation of the collision avoidance based on the severity of the accident, or the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object.
HRUSCHKA teaches:
- to take the movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to vehicle for the current control value of the control parameter as a basis for checking if the respective at least one object has met a predetermined relevance criterion,
(HRUSCHKA – On page 3, it states “One aspect of the present invention relates to a method for determining the trajectory of a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle is at least partially assisted by the auxiliary system of the motor vehicle, wherein the environment detection device of the auxiliary system detects at least one object in the environment of the motor vehicle, and determining the uncertainty of the object by the electronic calculating device of the auxiliary system, wherein according to the detected environment and the detected object, predicting the future environment of the object by means of the electronic computing device, wherein determining the risk value of the planned trajectory based on the collision probability determined by the electronic calculating device and the specific accident severity of the most probable impact condition and the most probable impact condition, wherein the collision probability and the accident severity are weighted in the risk value, and wherein the trajectory is determined according to the determined risk value.”)
- if relevance criterion is met, to take the movement equation for control values of a predefined control value range as a basis for ascertaining respective collision values of a collision parameter, relating to a predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
(HRUSCHKA – On page 2, it states “An appropriate accident severity measure may be used to distinguish an accident group due to different driving trajectss. In this case, for example, the accident severity is S= 0 of the collision-free maneuver will be classified, so finally can evaluate and compare all processing options, such as possible maneuvering, and selecting the best track”)
- to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the vehicle for the respective at least one object, which impact function assigns to the control values of the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event between the vehicle and the respective at least one object,
(HRUSCHKA – On page 4, it states “determining the risk, wherein the risk is determined according to the collision probability and the most possible impact condition. In addition, for the most possible impact condition, specifically calculating the accident severity, and correspondingly weighting the collision probability and severity. The trajectory planning is then based on the risk.” Note: The examiner interprets the trajectory planning as the control values and the risk is determined for each trajectory across the control range.)
- to ascertain an overall impact function of the vehicle from the respective impact functions in relation to the vehicle for the at least one object, and
- to ascertain an optimum control value of the control parameter from the overall impact function of the vehicle according to an optimization method.
(HRUSCHKA – On page 4, it states “In particular, it is proposed that the environment is detected by means of an environment detection device, wherein the uncertainty of the object pose and its relative to the object can be determined in particular. In addition, it also considers the uncertainty associated with the motor vehicle, predicting the environment in the future, and planning the safety track based on the information. determining the risk, wherein the risk is determined according to the collision probability and the most possible impact condition. In addition, for the most possible impact condition, specifically calculating the accident severity, and correspondingly weighting the collision probability and severity. The trajectory planning is then based on the risk. For example, then it can be emergency maneuver in emergency condition, wherein it is based on probability theory under the uncertainty of the emergency condition between the avoidance and mitigation to make a robust decision to perform, so as to finally perform steering and braking intervention of the combination, so as to improve the traffic safety. Then, the motor vehicle can execute the calculated emergency maneuver. then additionally realizing readjustment, wherein restarting the method from the head.”)
Wi and HRUSCHKA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi with HRUSCHKA. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with an overall impact function of the collision that is trying to be avoided. Having a prediction of the severity of the possible collision allows for the system to evaluate the least severe of the options to choose the safest option for the vehicle and its user.
Regarding claim 2,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
wherein the control apparatus is further configured
- to at least one of receive trailer movement data which describe a movement of a trailer of the vehicle-trailer combination or ascertain the trailer movement data from the vehicle movement data,
(Wi – Fig. 6, see below, element 603)
PNG
media_image1.png
623
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- to take the trailer movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the trailer as a function of time and the current control value of the control parameter of the vehicle,
(Wi – Paragraph [0099] states “The controller 150 may obtain the coordinates of a plurality of detection points located on the sides of the trailer 2 by processing the radar data obtained through the rear radars 133 and 134, and obtains the rotation angle θ_k of the trailer 2 at one time point based on the coordinates of the center point having an average of the plurality of detection points. Referring to FIG. 4, the controller 150 may obtain the rotation angle θ_k at one time point based on a distance between the origin and the center point with the position of the rear camera 140 as the origin. For a detailed calculation process, refer to Equation 1 below.”)
- to take the object movement data of the at least one object and the trailer movement data as a basis for ascertaining a movement equation for describing the movement of the respective at least one object in relation to the trailer as a function of time and the current control value of the control parameter of the vehicle,
(Wi – Paragraph [0099] states “The controller 150 may obtain the coordinates of a plurality of detection points located on the sides of the trailer 2 by processing the radar data obtained through the rear radars 133 and 134, and obtains the rotation angle θ_k of the trailer 2 at one time point based on the coordinates of the center point having an average of the plurality of detection points. Referring to FIG. 4, the controller 150 may obtain the rotation angle θ_k at one time point based on a distance between the origin and the center point with the position of the rear camera 140 as the origin. For a detailed calculation process, refer to Equation 1 below”)
- if the relevance criterion is met, to ascertain respective collision values of a collision parameter, relating to a predicted collision event between the trailer and the respective at least one object, for the control values of the predefined control value range,
(Wi – Paragraph [0134] states “The controller 150 may perform the braking control with the maximum deceleration of −6 m/s.sup.2. The vehicle 1 may prevent or reduce a collision with the object ahead 3 and simultaneously prevent or reduce a collision between the trailer 2 and an object behind the trailer 2 by applying an appropriate deceleration amount.”)
- to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the trailer for the respective at least one object, relating to the predicted collision event between the trailer and the respective at least one object, and
(Wi – Paragraph [0134] states “The controller 150 may perform the braking control with the maximum deceleration of −6 m/s.sup.2. The vehicle 1 may prevent or reduce a collision with the object ahead 3 and simultaneously prevent or reduce a collision between the trailer 2 and an object behind the trailer 2 by applying an appropriate deceleration amount.”)
- to ascertain the overall impact function of the vehicle-trailer combination from the respective impact function in relation to the vehicle of the at least one object and the respective impact function in relation to the trailer of the at least one object .
(Wi – Paragraph [0067-0068] states “The front radar data may include position information and a speed degree of an object located in front of the vehicle 1 (e.g., any other vehicle, a pedestrian, cyclist, etc.). The front radar 120 may calculate a relative distance to an obstacle based on a phase difference (and/or time difference) between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave, and calculate a relative speed of the obstacle based on the frequency difference between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave. The front radar 120 may transmit the front radar data to the controller 150.”)
Wi teaches a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer. However, Wi does not teach the evaluation of the collision avoidance based on the severity of the accident, or to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the trailer for the respective at least one object, which impact function assigns to the control values of the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event.
HRUSCHKA teaches:
- if the relevance criterion is met, to ascertain respective collision values of a collision parameter, relating to a predicted collision event between the respective at least one object, for the control values of the predefined control value range,
(HRUSCHKA – On page 2, it states “An appropriate accident severity measure may be used to distinguish an accident group due to different driving trajectss. In this case, for example, the accident severity is S= 0 of the collision-free maneuver will be classified, so finally can evaluate and compare all processing options, such as possible maneuvering, and selecting the best track”)
- to take the respective collision values of the collision parameter for the control value range as a basis for ascertaining an impact function in relation to the trailer for the respective at least one object, which impact function assigns to the control values of the control value range an impact value relating to the predicted collision event between the respective at least one object, and
(HRUSCHKA – On page 4, it states “determining the risk, wherein the risk is determined according to the collision probability and the most possible impact condition. In addition, for the most possible impact condition, specifically calculating the accident severity, and correspondingly weighting the collision probability and severity. The trajectory planning is then based on the risk.” Note: The examiner interprets the trajectory planning as the control values and the risk is determined for each trajectory across the control range.)
Wi and HRUSCHKA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi with HRUSCHKA. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with an overall impact function of the collision that is trying to be avoided. Having a prediction of the severity of the possible collision allows for the system to evaluate the least severe of the options to choose the safest option for the vehicle and its user.
Regarding claim 6,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
HRUSCHKA further teaches:
wherein the collision parameter includes a collision energy of the predicted collision event.
(HRUSCHKA – On page 10, it states “Despite this, various measures for the seriousness of the incident have been worked out over the years. For example, the deformation energy Δ T is by obtain the force on the intrusion body. Since the invasion is measured after the impact, it gives only plastic energy exchange. the equivalent energy speed (EES) is used as the kinetic energy of the deformation energy Δ T and the vehicle mass m is connected: Δ T = 0.5mEES2”)
Wi and HRUSCHKA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi with HRUSCHKA. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with an overall impact function of the collision that is trying to be avoided. Having a prediction of the severity of the possible collision based on the energy of the vehicle and object allows for the system to evaluate the least severe of the options to choose the safest option for the vehicle and its user.
Regarding claim 7,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
wherein the control apparatus is configured to actuate the vehicle to set the optimum control value of the control parameter.
(Wi – Paragraph [0019] states “performing, by the controller and based on a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) function, at least one of: generating a warning signal, or controlling a braking device; and changing, by the controller and based on the trailer being coupled to the vehicle, at least one of: a timing of generating the warning signal, or an operation of the controlling the braking device.”)
Regarding claim 8,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
wherein the control parameter includes at least one of a steering angle or an acceleration.
(Wi – Paragraph [0055] states “ ADAS may assist a driver to operate (e.g., driving, braking, steering) the vehicle 1. For example, ADAS may detect environments around the vehicle 1 (e.g., other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, lanes, road signs, etc.), and control the driving and/or braking and/or steering of the vehicle 1 in accordance with the detected environments.”)
Regarding claim 9,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
wherein the control apparatus is configured to actuate an output device for outputting output signals to instruct a driver of the vehicle to set the optimum control value of the control parameter.
(Wi – Paragraph [0019] states “performing, by the controller and based on a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) function, at least one of: generating a warning signal, or controlling a braking device; and changing, by the controller and based on the trailer being coupled to the vehicle, at least one of: a timing of generating the warning signal, or an operation of the controlling the braking device.” Note: The examiner interprets the warning signal as the signal to instruct the driver.)
Regarding claim 10,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
wherein the collision warning device comprises a sensor apparatus which is configured to detect the at least one object in the surroundings of the vehicle-trailer combination and to transmit the object movement data to the control apparatus .
(Wi – Paragraph [0055] states “ADAS may assist a driver to operate (e.g., driving, braking, steering) the vehicle 1. For example, ADAS may detect environments around the vehicle 1 (e.g., other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, lanes, road signs, etc.), and control the driving and/or braking and/or steering of the vehicle 1 in accordance with the detected environments.”)
Regarding claim 12,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wi further teaches:
A vehicle comprising a collision warning device as claimed in claim 1.
(Wi – Paragraph [0009] states “ A vehicle may comprise…”)
Regarding claim 13, it recites a method with limitations substantially the same as claim
1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a computer program with limitations substantially the same as claim 13 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium with limitations substantially the same as claim 14 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. (US 20230365125 A1) in view of HRUSCHKA (CN 115195713 A) and further in view of Ayyappan et al. (US 20170305341 A1).
Regarding claim 3,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Wi and HRUSCHKA do not teach the limitations of claim 3.
Ayyappan teaches:
wherein the predetermined relevance criterion includes a predefined minimum distance being undershot by a predicted minimum distance between the vehicle and the at least one object .
(Ayyappan – Paragraph [0009] states “The present invention is based on the realization that the driver of a motor vehicle can be warned about an object in the surroundings in a way which is particularly appropriate for the requirements if the warning signal is output as a function of the collision distance, that is to say a predicted distance from the collision. The warning signal is output here if a value of the minimum distance between the motor vehicle and the object undershoots a predetermined limiting value. The minimum distance, which is also referred to as the shortest distance (SD), constitutes the shortest distance between the motor vehicle, for example the bodywork of the motor vehicle, and the object. A value or a measured value is determined for the minimum distance. The value therefore characterizes the minimum distance. The warning of the driver as a function of the value of the minimum distance has the advantage that the driver can understand the minimum distance and link it to the real world.”)
Wi, HRUSCHKA, and Ayyappan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi and HRUSCHKA with Ayyappan. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with the use of a minimum distance parameter to determine if the object is relevant for the system. This allows the system to be more efficient as it does not need to go through a collision avoidance analysis if the object is not within the distance.
Regarding claim 4,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Wi and HRUSCHKA do not teach the limitations of claim 4.
Ayyappan teaches:
wherein the collision parameter includes a duration until the predicted collision event.
(Ayyappan – Paragraph [0011] states “ In one embodiment, the collision distance is determined as a function of time, and the determined value of the minimum distance is adapted if the collision distance changes as a function of time. The collision distance can be determined, for example, at predetermined times”)
Wi, HRUSCHKA, and Ayyappan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi and HRUSCHKA with Ayyappan. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with the use of a time until the collision as a parameter to determine if the object is relevant for the system. This allows the system to be more efficient as it can determine what actions it can take within that time which limits the final analysis on those choices.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. (US 20230365125 A1) in view of HRUSCHKA (CN 115195713 A) and further in view of Perez Barrera et al. (US 20240416898 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Wi and HRUSCHKA do not teach the limitations of claim 5.
Barrera teaches:
wherein the collision parameter includes a collision location of the predicted collision event in relation to the vehicle-trailer combination.
(Barrera – Paragraph [0100] states “s previously mentioned, vehicle 102 can transmit to vehicle 104 information regarding the current location of vehicle 102 and information regarding vehicle 106, including the length L of vehicle 106. By knowing position C (here position 108 is used to denote a potential location of a collision between vehicle 102 and 106)”)
Wi, HRUSCHKA, and Barrera are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi and Barrera with Ayyappan. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with the use of a collision location parameter to determine if the object is relevant for the system. This allows the system to be more efficient as it can determine what actions it can take within that distance which limits the final analysis on those choices.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wi et al. (US 20230365125 A1) in view of HRUSCHKA (CN 115195713 A) and further in view of .
Regarding claim 11,
Wi and HRUSCHKA teach the limitations of claim 1.
However, Wi and HRUSCHKA do not teach the limitations of claim 11.
YOON teaches:
wherein the collision value of the collision parameter is ascertained by polygonal modeling of at least one of the object or the vehicle-trailer combination.
(YOON – Paragraph [0044] states “ Next, the controller finds movement displacements (in the longitudinal direction and the transversal direction) of the vehicle using the dynamic model of the vehicle or the kinematics model of the vehicle, and the position of the vehicle is converted into a polygonal shape or a multilateral shape on the basis of specifications of the vehicle from a central portion of the vehicle.”)
Wi, HRUSCHKA, and YOON are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of controlling a vehicle to avoid a collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wi and YOON with Ayyappan. It would have been obvious to combine a collision avoidance and control system for a vehicle with a trailer with the use of a polygon model. This allows the system to be more efficient as it can determine where the objects are around the vehicle and their shape so that the system can know where the impact might happen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights