DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/23/2025.
Claims 1-13 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-13 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0100197) in view of Aso et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0024357).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0100197) in view of Aso et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0024357), further in view of Khan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0121388).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0100197) in view of Aso et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0024357), further in view of Kitaura et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0074860).
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an own-vehicle route calculator,” “an object route calculator,” “a collision determiner,” “the object route calculator.”
Support for these elements is provided in at least Fig. 1 of the instant specification, wherein these elements are depicted to be components of the ECU 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A collision determination apparatus for determining whether there will be a collision of an own vehicle with an object detected by an object detection device, the collision determination apparatus comprising:
an own-vehicle route calculator configured to calculate, based on motion information on the own vehicle measured by at least one vehicular device installed in the own vehicle, an estimated first movement route of the own vehicle in a three-dimensional coordinate system, the three-dimensional coordinate system being defined to have a first axis representing distance in a width direction of the own vehicle, a second axis representing distance in a direction of travel of the own vehicle, and a third axis representing elapsed time from a current time;
an object route calculator configured to calculate, based on a position of the detected object detected by the object detection device, an estimated second movement route of the detected object in the three- dimensional coordinate system; and
a collision determiner configured to determine whether there is an intersection between the estimated first movement route of the own vehicle and the estimated second movement route of the detected object to accordingly determine whether there will be a collision of the own vehicle with the detected object, wherein:
the object route calculator is configured to, in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, calculate, as the estimated second movement route of the detected object, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the three-dimensional coordinate system.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations involve at least one mathematical concept and may be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of:
... calculate, based on motion information on the own vehicle measured by at least one vehicular device installed in the own vehicle, an estimated first movement route of the own vehicle in a three-dimensional coordinate system, the three-dimensional coordinate system being defined to have a first axis representing distance in a width direction of the own vehicle, a second axis representing distance in a direction of travel of the own vehicle, and a third axis representing elapsed time from a current time;
... calculate, based on a position of the detected object detected by the object detection device, an estimated second movement route of the detected object in the three- dimensional coordinate system; and
... determine whether there is an intersection between the estimated first movement route of the own vehicle and the estimated second movement route of the detected object to accordingly determine whether there will be a collision of the own vehicle with the detected object, wherein:
... in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, calculate, as the estimated second movement route of the detected object, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the three-dimensional coordinate system.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the claim describes a person examining data regarding a vehicle and an object within a three-dimensional space (e.g., three-dimensional coordinates representing the positions of the vehicle and object at over time) and determining whether there is an intersection between the respective routes, and determining that the vehicle is turning around a turning center point based on the positional information.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: an own-vehicle route calculator; an object route calculator; a collision determiner; the object route calculator.
The elements of “an own-vehicle route calculator; an object route calculator; a collision determiner; the object route calculator” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle data processing environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 12 and 13
Independent claims 12 and 13 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “an own-vehicle route calculator; an object route calculator; a collision determiner; the object route calculator” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, claims 5 and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0100197) in view of Aso et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0024357), further in view of Kitaura et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0074860).
Regarding claim 1, Saiki discloses the collision determination apparatus for determining whether there will be a collision of an own vehicle with an object detected by an object detection device, the collision determination apparatus comprising:
an own-vehicle route calculator configured to calculate, based on motion information on the own vehicle measured by at least one vehicular device installed in the own vehicle, an estimated first movement route of the own vehicle in a three-dimensional coordinate system (Saiki ¶ 58 discloses ECU 10 that includes an “own vehicle trajectory calculation part/unit 12” which is with respect to the road ahead of the own vehicle), the [two]-dimensional coordinate system being defined to have a first axis representing distance in a width direction of the own vehicle, a second axis representing distance in a direction of travel of the own vehicle, ... (Saiki ¶ 59 “An axis of the two-dimensional coordinate system extends in parallel with a lateral (left-right, width) direction of the own vehicle. The other axis of the two-dimensional coordinate system extends forwardly in parallel with a longitudinal (front-rear) direction of the own vehicle.”)
an object route calculator configured to calculate, based on a position of the detected object detected by the object detection device, an estimated second movement route of the detected object in the [two]- dimensional coordinate system; and (Saiki ¶ 61 discloses that “The 3-D object trajectory calculation part 13 determines whether a 3-D object is a moving object or a stationary object, based on the positional variation of the 3-D object and/or features of the 3-D object included in the image of the 3-D object. When it is determined that the 3-D object is the moving object, the 3-D object trajectory calculation part 13 calculates the trajectory of that 3-D object,” wherein the object moves in a longitudinal and lateral direction [i.e., two-dimensional coordinate system])
a collision determiner configured to determine whether there is an intersection between the estimated first movement route of the own vehicle and the estimated second movement route of the detected object to accordingly determine whether there will be a collision of the own vehicle with the detected object, (Saiki ¶ 62 discloses that “The obstacle determination part 14 determines whether or not there is a high probability (i.e., collision probability) of a collision between the own vehicle and the 3-D object which is the moving object, based on the own vehicle predicted trajectory and the 3-D object predicted trajectory, on the premise that the 3-D object maintains a current moving state and the own vehicle maintains a current traveling state.” Also see ¶¶ 58, 62, and 73.) wherein:
the object route calculator is configured to, in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, calculate, as the estimated second movement route of the detected object, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the three-dimensional coordinate system. (Saiki ¶ 52 discloses “The support ECU 10 detects obstacles present in front of (ahead of) the own vehicle based on the signals detected by those sensors. When the support ECU 10 determines that the own vehicle is likely to collide with the obstacle (i.e., when it is determined that a probability of the collision of the own vehicle with the obstacle is sufficiently high), the support ECU 10 transmits an instruction for decelerating the own vehicle to the brake ECU 30,” which includes “performing the automatic turn control when the post-avoidance route collision determination means determines that the another obstacle is present,” see at least ¶¶ 15-16.)
Saiki does not expressly disclose:
... and a third axis representing elapsed time from a current time;
... three- dimensional coordinate system
calculate, in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the three-dimensional coordinate system as the estimated second movement route of the detected object.
However, Aso discloses:
... and a third axis representing elapsed time from a current time; (Aso ¶ 160 discloses “performing trajectory generation processing for a predetermined number of times for all objects detected by the sensor section 3, as described above, a space-time environment consisting of a set of trajectories that could be followed by a plurality of objects present within a predetermined range of the three-dimensional space-time is formed.” Also see Fig. 4 reproduced below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
596
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
... three- dimensional coordinate system (Aso in at least Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the two-dimensional coordinate system of Saiki with the coordinate system of Saiki being measured over time to form a three-dimensional coordinate system having a third axis representing elapsed time from a current time, as disclosed by Aso, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve reliability of prediction results (Aso ¶ 322) and to simply situations for prediction (Aso ¶ 185) and to precisely avoid danger with other objects (Aso ¶ 178), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Kitaura discloses:
calculate, in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the [two]-dimensional coordinate system as the estimated second movement route of the detected object. (Kitaura ¶ 31 discloses that “the own vehicle route estimating unit 24 calculates a turning center point with the point of origin as a starting point, based on the steering angle and the turning radius. Then, the own vehicle route estimating unit 24 identifies a circle (curved line) based on the calculated turning radius and turning center point,” such that “the turning center point is indicated by X0, the turning radius is indicated by R1, the route of the own vehicle CS is indicated by A1, the starting point is indicated by X1, the terminal point is indicated by X2, and the route of the target object Ob is indicated by A2,” see ¶ 38 and corresponding Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the two-dimensional coordinate system of Kitaura with a three-dimensiional coordinate system of Aso, with reasonable expectation of success, because the coordinate system of Kitaura is measured over time, see Fig. 2 and corresponding ¶ 30. Therefore, generating a three-dimensional representation of the X, Y position over time is an obvious modification.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the calculated trajectory of the object as disclosed in Saiki, of the combination of Saiki and Aso, with calculating, in response to determination that (i) the own vehicle is turning around a turning center point while following the detected object and (ii) the detected object is a preceding vehicle in front of the own vehicle, a turning trajectory of the detected object around the turning center point of the own vehicle in the three-dimensional coordinate system as the estimated second movement route of the detected object, as disclosed by Kitaura, with reasonable expectation of success, so that when the collision determination is performed, deviations in accuracy depending on the type of the approximated straight line can be eliminated (Kitaura ¶ 59), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 2, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an own-vehicle turning determiner configured to determine whether at least one of a radius of curvature of a turning trajectory of the own vehicle and a rate of change of a steering angle of the own vehicle is smaller than or equal to at least one of corresponding thresholds to accordingly determine whether the own vehicle is turning. (Saiki ¶ 60 discloses “The own vehicle trajectory calculation part 12 calculates a turning radius of the own vehicle based on the yaw rate detected by the yaw rate sensor 73 and the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed sensor 74,” such that “the automatic turn control is preferably an automatic steering control for changing the traveling direction of the own vehicle through controlling a steering angle of the own vehicle,” thereby determining that the vehicle is turning, see ¶ 17. Also see ¶ 30 disclosing that the route calculation is based on the “assumption that the own vehicle travels ... when the own vehicle passes through (reaches) [i.e., a corresponding threshold] ... a traveling direction (i.e., a moving direction of the own vehicle, a turning angle)”)
Regarding claim 3, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a follow determiner configured to determine whether a plurality of follow requirements are satisfied to accordingly determine whether the own vehicle is following the detected object, (Saiki ¶ 52 discloses “The support ECU 10 detects obstacles present in front of (ahead of) the own vehicle based on the signals detected by those sensors. When the support ECU 10 determines that the own vehicle is likely to collide with the obstacle (i.e., when it is determined that a probability of the collision of the own vehicle with the obstacle is sufficiently high), the support ECU 10 transmits an instruction for decelerating the own vehicle to the brake ECU 30.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining an obstacle present in front of the vehicle includes determining whether the vehicle is following the object.)
the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether the detected object is located on a predetermined region of a traffic lane on which the own vehicle is traveling, the predetermined region being surrounded by left- and right-side lane markers of the traffic lane. (Saiki ¶ 49 discloses camera sensors that calculate the “presence or absence of the 3-D object, the relative relationships between the own vehicle and the 3-D object” and recognizing “lane markers,” “such as right and left white lines on the road,” and calculating “a shape of the road and a positional relationship between the road and the own vehicle, using the recognized white lines.” Also see ¶ 59.)
Regarding claim 4, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a follow determiner configured to determine whether a plurality of follow requirements are satisfied to accordingly determine whether the own vehicle is following the detected object, (Saiki ¶ 52 discloses “The support ECU 10 detects obstacles present in front of (ahead of) the own vehicle based on the signals detected by those sensors. When the support ECU 10 determines that the own vehicle is likely to collide with the obstacle (i.e., when it is determined that a probability of the collision of the own vehicle with the obstacle is sufficiently high), the support ECU 10 transmits an instruction for decelerating the own vehicle to the brake ECU 30.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining an obstacle present in front of the vehicle includes determining whether the vehicle is following the object.)
the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether a lateral distance of the detected object relative to a turning trajectory of the own vehicle is within a width of the own vehicle. (Saiki ¶ 60 discloses “The own vehicle trajectory is calculated so as to have a predetermined width in a direction perpendicular to the traveling direction of the own vehicle in a plan view. Hereinafter, the thus calculated trajectory of the own vehicle is referred to as an “own vehicle predicted trajectory”,” wherein the “3-D object trajectory calculation part 13 may [acquire] the 3-D object predicted trajectory based on the calculated own vehicle predicted trajectory and the distance between the own vehicle and the 3-D object detected by the ambient sensor 71.”)
Regarding claim 7, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a follow determiner configured to determine whether the own vehicle is following the detected object in accordance with whether a plurality of follow requirements are satisfied, the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether the detected object is a four-wheel vehicle or a motorcycle. (Saiki ¶ 47 discloses ambient sensor 71 which acquires information of the road ahead of the own vehicle and 3D objects including moving objects such as vehicles that are present on the road [i.e., determining that the dynamic object is a four-wheel vehicle]. Also see ¶ 59 disclose that an “own vehicle lane recognition part 11 recognizes/acquires a shape of a “travelling lane of the own vehicle” defined by the right-side white line and the left-side white line, a position and a direction of the own vehicle in (with respect to) the traveling lane, and relative positions of the ground surface and the 3-D objects with respect to the own vehicle [i.e., satisfied follow requirements])
Regarding claim 8, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a turning follow determiner configured to determine whether the own vehicle is turning while following the detected object in accordance with (i) a steering angle of the own vehicle, (Saiki ¶ 92 “target steering angle”) (ii) a yaw rate of the own vehicle, (Saiki ¶ 92 “the control instruction part 20 may transmit a steering instruction for avoiding the collision including information on the target yaw rate to the steering ECU 50”) and (iii) a speed of the own vehicle acquired based on the motion information on the own vehicle measured by the at least one vehicular device. (Saiki ¶ 60 “the vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed sensor 74”)
Regarding claim 12, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura further discloses a memory storing a set of program instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the program instructions to perform the limitations of claim 1. (Saiki in at least ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 13, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura further discloses a program product for determining whether there will be a collision of an own vehicle with an object detected by an object detection device, the program product comprising: a non-transitory storage medium; and program instructions stored in the non-transitory storage medium, the program instructions causing a processor to perform the limitations of claim 1. (Saiki in at least ¶ 46 discloses an electronic control unit including a microcomputer, which includes a CPU and a memory device configured to execute programs or instructions stored in the memory).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0100197) in view of Aso et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0024357), further in view of Khan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0121388).
Regarding claim 6, Saiki in combination with Aso and Kitaura does not expressly disclose the collision determination apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a follow determiner configured to determine whether the own vehicle is following the detected object in accordance with whether a plurality of follow requirements are satisfied, the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether a ground speed of the detected object is lower than a predetermined speed threshold,
the follow determiner being configured to, in response to determination that the ground speed of the detected object is lower than the predetermined speed threshold, determine that the detected object is a stationary object and determine that the stationary object is a target that the own vehicle follows.
However, Khan discloses:
a follow determiner configured to determine whether the own vehicle is following the detected object in accordance with whether a plurality of follow requirements are satisfied, the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether a ground speed of the detected object is lower than a predetermined speed threshold, (Khan ¶ 96 discloses “determining whether the vehicle linear speed in the predicted future vehicle state δ.sub.T, is greater than a defined speed threshold” in performing a risk check, including determining a defined distance threshold between the vehicle and an object in the environment, which “may be a variable distance threshold, which may vary depending on vehicle speed at the given future timestep T′ for example (e.g., the defined distance may be larger when the vehicle speed is higher),” see ¶ 94, such as “following another vehicle too closely, see ¶ 73)
the follow determiner being configured to, in response to determination that the ground speed of the detected object is lower than the predetermined speed threshold, determine that the detected object is a stationary object and determine that the stationary object is a target that the own vehicle follows. (Khan ¶ 69 discloses that “The environment map may include the vehicle 105 (which may be suitably localized within the environment 100 by performing localization of the vehicle 105 using the sensor data), and both static and dynamic objects in the environment 100,” including determining “whether the distance between the vehicle 105 at the given future timestep T′ (e.g., the vehicle 105 at the predicted vehicle location indicated by the predicted future vehicle state δ.sub.T,) and detected objects in the environment 100 is smaller than a defined distance threshold” based on the vehicle speed being higher, see ¶ 94. Also see ¶ 96 “The defined speed threshold may vary depending on the predicted trajectory, the detected road geometry in the environment map and/or the estimated speed of another vehicle in front of the vehicle 105 in the same lane”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the determination that the own vehicle is following a detected object of Saiki with the plurality of follow requirements including a requirement indicative of whether a ground speed of the detected object is lower than a predetermined speed threshold, as disclosed by Khan, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure the vehicle 105 follows defined driving rules (Khan ¶ 65) and to provide a more accurate 3D map to the risk prediction system 310. The ADAS 340 may also be able to better perform behavior planning and trajectory prediction using a more accurate 3D map (Khan ¶ 72), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Woelki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0162612) discloses a machine-learned architecture may predict multiple paths that an object could take in the future without regard to time at which the object may occupy positions identified by one of those paths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights