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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled boxes shown in Figs. 1-3 and 5 should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, 10-13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 refers to “the pre-collision time to impact (TTI)” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the pre-collision TTI-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “pre-collision time to impact (TTI)” in lines 1-2 of claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “TTIinterpolation” in line 5, which should be amended to instead recite -- TTIinterpolation-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “TTIinterpolation” in line 6 of the claim.
Claim 8 recites “tcycle” in line 5, which should be amended to instead recite -- tcycle-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “tcycle” in line 7 of the claim.
Claims 10-13 each recite “The device” in line 1, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --The airbag control device-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An airbag control device” in line 1 of claim 9.
Claim 12 refers to “the pre-collision time to impact (TTI)” in line 4, which should be amended to instead recite --the pre-collision TTI-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “pre-collision time to impact (TTI)” in lines 1-2 of claim 10.
Claim 15 recites “the device” in each of line 2 and line 4, which should be amended in each instance to instead recite --the airbag control device-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “An airbag control device” in line 1 of claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: “first receiving mechanism” in claims 9-13 and 15, “second receiving mechanism” in claims 9-13 and 15, “determination mechanism” in claims 9-13 and 15, “signal activation unit” in claims 11-13, “first acceleration threshold verification unit” in claims 11-13, “TTI acceptability verification unit” in claims 11-13, “adjustment unit” in claims 11-13, “control unit” in claims 11-13, and “the [airbag control] device” as used in lines 5-7 of claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is directed to a “control method” (see line 1), and claim 1 recites “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” in lines 5-6; however, no part of “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” sets forth step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “control method,” and no part of “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” necessarily further defines any previously introduced step(s) of the claimed “control method.” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I). Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” at the end of claim 1.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and claim 14 fully incorporates claim 1, such that claims 2-8 and 14 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 9 is directed to an “airbag control device” (see line 1), and claim 9 recites “wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” in lines 7-8; however, no part of “wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” sets forth structure to be included by, or function to be performable by, the claimed “airbag control device,” and no part of “wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” necessarily further defines any previously introduced structure or function of the claimed “airbag control device.” Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I). Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is intended by inclusion of “wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” at the end of claim 9.
Claim 9 also refers to “the ignition threshold” in line 7; however, the claim fails to previously introduce “an ignition threshold,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by the “ignition threshold” referred to in line 7 of the claim. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-13 depend from claim 9, such that claims 10-13 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 9 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 9 is rejected.
Claim 15 refers to “the acceleration sensor” in line 6. Claim 15 previously introduces “an acceleration sensor” in line 3. Claim 15 further fully incorporates claim 9 in line 2, and line 2 previously introduces “an acceleration sensor” in lines 4-5. Specifically, it is unclear which of the “acceleration sensor” introduced in lines 4-5 of claim 9 and the “acceleration sensor” introduced in line 3 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as the “acceleration sensor” introduced in line 6 of claim 15. Also, it is unclear whether the “acceleration sensor” introduced in line 3 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “acceleration sensor” previously introduced in lines 4-5 of claim 9. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “A computer program product comprising a computer program, wherein, when executed by a processor, the computer program implements the method according to claim 1.” A claim to nothing more than a computer program (e.g., software) is a claim that is directed to a product that does not have a physical or tangible form, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim to a “computer program product” includes a non-statutory embodiment (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.03_I). Because claim 14 is directed to nothing more than a computer program (i.e., “program code”), claim 14 is not directed to any of the statutory categories. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to cancel claim 14.
Claims 1-15 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
Each of claims 1 and 13 is directed to an apparatus. Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, and claims 14-18 depend from claim 13. Claim 19 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 9 each include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A control method for an airbag, comprising:
receiving pre-collision information from an autonomous driving system;
receiving an acceleration signal from an acceleration sensor; and
determining whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal,
wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information. (emphasis added).
Claim 9 recites:
An airbag control device, comprising:
a first receiving mechanism configured to receive pre-collision information from an autonomous driving system;
a second receiving mechanism configured to receive an acceleration signal from an acceleration sensor; and
a determination mechanism configured to determine whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal,
wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information. (emphasis added).
Also, claim 14 fully incorporates claim 1, reciting:
A computer program product comprising a computer program,
wherein, when executed by a processor, the computer program implements the method according to claim 1. (emphasis added).
Additionally, claim 15 fully incorporates claim 9, reciting:
An airbag control system, comprising:
the device according to claim 9;
an acceleration sensor; and
an airbag,
wherein the device is configured to determine whether to deploy the airbag based on the acceleration signal provided by the acceleration sensor and the pre-collision information provided by the autonomous driving system via an in-vehicle network. (emphasis added).
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each of the recited “determining…” (or “determine…”) limitations, in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Accordingly, each of claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
In claims 1 and 9, the underlined “receiving…” (or “receive…”) limitations amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity that merely defines data gathering, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the aforementioned abstract idea [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(g)].
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I). In claims 1 and 9, no part of “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” sets forth step(s) to be performed or necessarily further defines structure (or function of claimed structure) and no part of “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” necessarily further defines any previously introduced step(s).
The disclosed structure corresponding to each of the “first receiving mechanism” in claim 9, the “second receiving mechanism” in claim 9, the “determination mechanism” in claim 9, the “computer program” and “processor” in claim 14, and the “device” in claim 15 amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea or reciting implementation of the abstract idea on a computer [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(f)]. Note that the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite abstract ideas performed by humans and claims that recite abstract performed on a computer, and both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite abstract ideas [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)2)_III], and simply implementing abstract idea(s) on a physical machine (e.g., a computer or controller) is not a patentable application of that/those abstract idea(s) (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)_III & 2106.04(d)).
The background of Applicant’s specification (see page 1) admits that inclusion of an airbag and control thereof dependent upon a detected collision acceleration signal were known to be “crucial” at the time the invention was made.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. While the generic structural elements recited by claims 1, 13, and 19 provide some limitation to use of the claimed abstract ideas, the generic structural elements recited by claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 merely confine the judicial exception to a generic technological environment and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claims (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.06(h)). Also, no particular transformation of an article via the abstract idea(s) is present in claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 (e.g., see: MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 an 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 a 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 limitation(s) do/does 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
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed in detail above, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art, and are additionally acknowledged as such by at least MPEP 2106. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 are dependent from claim 1, and claims 10-13 are dependent from claim 9, and claims 2-8 and 10-13 merely further introduce additional “mental process”/“mathematical concepts” abstract idea(s) to the respective method or system and/or further define “mental process”/“mathematical concepts” abstract idea(s) introduced by a preceding claim without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, claims 3-8 are replete with contingent limitations, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 6-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0009061 to Roh (hereinafter: “Roh”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0022451 to Park (hereinafter: “Park”).
With respect to claim 1, Roh teaches a control method for an airbag [the preamble recitation “control method for an airbag” (emphasis added) merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed method, rather than any distinct definition of any of the limitations of the claimed method, such that the underlined portions of aforementioned preamble recitation is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02_II); even so, apparent from at least the Abstract], comprising: receiving pre-collision information from a vehicle driving system [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-5 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0010, 0019, 0035-0037, 0041, 0045-0046 & 0051-0052, a time to collision (TTC) (e.g., “pre-collision information”) is obtained (e.g., “receiving”) from a first calculation performed by a controller 130 of an ego-vehicle (e.g., from a vehicle driving system) and/or a target relative velocity (e.g., “pre-collision information”) is obtained (e.g., “receiving”) from a second calculation performed by the controller 130 of the ego-vehicle (e.g., from a vehicle driving system) and/or surrounding vehicle information (e.g., “pre-collision information”) is obtained (e.g., “receiving”) by the controller 130 from a first sensor unit 110]; receiving an acceleration signal from an acceleration sensor [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 2-4 & 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0037, 0043, 0048-0049 & 0061-0063, sensor acceleration information (e.g., “acceleration signal”) is obtained (e.g., “receiving”) by the controller 130 from a second sensor unit 120 (e.g., “acceleration sensor”)]; and determining whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal [as depicted by at least Figs. 2-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0035, 0041-0043, 0045-0049 & 0051-0063; note that “determining whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal” neither requires a step of deploying the “airbag” nor requires a result of determining to deploy the airbag as “determining whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal” may instead have a result of determining to not deploy the airbag], wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information [claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” neither sets forth step(s) to be performed as part of the claimed “control method” nor necessarily further defines any previously introduced step(s) of the claimed “control method,” such that “wherein an ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” does not further limit the scope of the claimed “control method” under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, as depicted by at least Figs. 3-6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0042-0043, 0048-0049 & 0055-0063].
Roh appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the vehicle driving system is an autonomous driving system, such that Roh appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the pre-collision information is received from an autonomous driving system.
Park teaches an analogous control method including receiving pre-collision information from an autonomous driving system (as depicted by at least Fig. 2 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0002-0009 & 0077).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the control method of Roh with the teachings of Park, if even necessary, such that the vehicle driving system is an autonomous driving system, and such that the pre-collision information is received from the autonomous driving system, to beneficially control driving without human input via autonomous driving functions of the vehicle, while beneficially providing emergency actions, including controlling of airbag deployment, based on predicted collision during autonomous driving.
With respect to claim 2, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the pre-collision information comprises pre-collision time to impact (TTI), relative velocity, and target type [for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, the “pre-collision information” includes each of the TTC (e.g., “pre-collision TTI”), the target relative velocity (e.g., “relative velocity”), and the surrounding vehicle information (e.g., “target type”)].
With respect to claim 3, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal comprises: performing a first acceleration threshold verification on the acceleration signal [for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0062 of Roh, verification of the sensor acceleration information having not been received (“N” at S211) is performed in a first iteration of Fig. 4]; performing a signal activation verification on the pre-collision information (for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0051-0054 of Roh, verification as to whether the collision risk has been determined is performed in a second iteration of Fig. 4 immediately following the first iteration of Fig. 4, where the collision risk is determined based on the TTC and the target relative velocity, such that the verification includes verification on the “pre-collision information”); if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed, performing a TTI acceptability verification on the pre-collision information [the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II), and “performing a TTI acceptability verification on the pre-collision information” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed, performing a TTI acceptability verification on the pre-collision information” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation; even so, for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0057 & 0061 of Roh, verification as to whether a collision risk section is maintained is performed]; after passing the TTI acceptability verification, adjusting the ignition threshold based on the relative velocity in the pre-collision information [“adjusting the ignition threshold based on the relative velocity in the pre-collision information” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “passing the TTI acceptability verification” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “after passing the TTI acceptability verification, adjusting the ignition threshold based on the relative velocity in the pre-collision information” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0057 of Roh, in a case where the collision risk has been determined and the collision risk section is maintained, the controller 130 adjusts a threshold for airbag deployment to a designated first threshold]; and deploying the airbag when the acceleration signal exceeds the adjusted ignition threshold [“deploying the airbag” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “when the acceleration signal exceeds the adjusted ignition threshold” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “deploying the airbag when the acceleration signal exceeds the adjusted ignition threshold” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above); even so, for example, as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0008 & 0062 of Roh, the controller 130 deploys the airbag at times including when the sensor acceleration information exceeds the designated first threshold].
With respect to claim 4, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein after passing the TTI acceptability verification, the greater the relative velocity, the lower the adjusted ignition threshold [“the greater the relative velocity, the lower the adjusted ignition threshold” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “passing the TTI acceptability verification” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “wherein after passing the TTI acceptability verification, the greater the relative velocity, the lower the adjusted ignition threshold” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 4-6 of Roh]; and if the TTI acceptability verification is not passed, the ignition threshold remains at its original value [“the ignition threshold remains at its original value” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “pass if the TTI acceptability verification is not passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “if the TTI acceptability verification is not passed, the ignition threshold remains at its original value” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above); even so, apparent from at least Figs. 4-6 of Roh].
With respect to claim 6, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein, if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed, performing the TTI acceptability verification on the pre-collision information comprises: performing a blind spot verification on the pre-collision information to determine an updated TTI [“performing a blind spot verification on the pre-collision information to determine an updated TTI” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “performing a blind spot verification on the pre-collision information to determine an updated TTI” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)]; calculating a TTI interpolation based on the updated TTI [“calculating a TTI interpolation based on the updated TTI” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “calculating a TTI interpolation based on the updated TTI” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)]; and verifying whether the TTI interpolation falls within an acceptance time window [“verifying whether the TTI interpolation falls within an acceptance time window” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “verifying whether the TTI interpolation falls within an acceptance time window” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)].
With respect to claim 7, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein performing the blind spot verification on the pre-collision information comprises: calculating an actual distance, wherein the actual distance equals the product of the TTI and the relative velocity in the pre-collision information [“calculating an actual distance, wherein the actual distance equals the product of the TTI and the relative velocity in the pre-collision information” would not necessarily be performed as a step of the claimed “control method” at times including when the condition “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” is not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “calculating an actual distance, wherein the actual distance equals the product of the TTI and the relative velocity in the pre-collision information” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)]; and if the actual distance is less than a blind spot length threshold, discarding the newly input TTI and using the last valid signal frame before entering the blind spot as the updated TTI [“discarding the newly input TTI and using the last valid signal frame before entering the blind spot as the updated TTI” would not necessarily be performed as steps of the claimed “control method” at times including when one or both of the conditions “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” and “if the actual distance is less than a blind spot length threshold” is/are not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “if the actual distance is less than a blind spot length threshold, discarding the newly input TTI and using the last valid signal frame before entering the blind spot as the updated TTI” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)]; otherwise, the updated TTI equals the TTI in the pre-collision information [“the updated TTI equals the TTI in the pre-collision information” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “control method” at times including when one or both of the conditions “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” and “otherwise” is/are not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “otherwise, the updated TTI equals the TTI in the pre-collision information” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)].
With respect to claim 8, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein calculating the TTI interpolation based on the updated TTI comprises: if the updated TTI is the same as the previous frame's TTI value, the TTI interpolation being calculated as: TTIinterpolation = TTIp - tcycle, where TTIinterpolation denotes the TTI interpolation, TTIp is the previous frame's TTI value, and tcycle denotes the deployment calculation cycle of the airbag control system [“the TTI interpolation being calculated as: TTIinterpolation = TTIp - tcycle, where TTIinterpolation denotes the TTI interpolation, TTIp is the previous frame's TTI value, and tcycle denotes the deployment calculation cycle of the airbag control system” would not necessarily be performed as part of the claimed “control method” at times including when one or both of the conditions “if both the signal activation verification and the first acceleration threshold verification are passed” and “if the updated TTI is the same as the previous frame's TTI value” is/are not met during performing of the claimed method, such that “wherein calculating the TTI interpolation based on the updated TTI comprises: if the updated TTI is the same as the previous frame's TTI value, the TTI interpolation being calculated as: TTIinterpolation = TTIp - tcycle, where TTIinterpolation denotes the TTI interpolation, TTIp is the previous frame's TTI value, and tcycle denotes the deployment calculation cycle of the airbag control system” is a contingent limitation which does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_II, as discussed in detail directly above)].
With respect to claim 9, Roh modified supra teaches an airbag control device (apparent from at least Figs. 2 & 3 of Roh), comprising: a first receiving mechanism configured to receive pre-collision information from an autonomous driving system; a second receiving mechanism configured to receive an acceleration signal from an acceleration sensor; and a determination mechanism configured to determine whether to deploy the airbag based on the pre-collision information and the acceleration signal (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1), wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information [“wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” neither sets forth structure to be included by, or function to be performable by, the claimed “airbag control device” nor necessarily further defines any previously introduced structure or function of the claimed “airbag control device,” such that “wherein the ignition threshold of the airbag is dynamically adjusted according to the pre-collision information” does not further limit the scope of the claimed “airbag control device” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1].
With respect to claim 10, Roh modified supra teaches the device according to claim 9, wherein the pre-collision information comprises pre-collision time to impact (TTI), relative velocity, and target type (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 2 and 9).
With respect to claim 11, Roh modified supra teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the determination mechanism comprises: a signal activation verification unit configured to perform a signal activation verification on the pre-collision information; a first acceleration threshold verification unit configured to perform a first acceleration threshold verification on the acceleration signal; a TTI acceptability verification unit configured to perform a TTI acceptability verification on the pre-collision information if both the signal activation verification unit and the first acceleration threshold verification unit have passed; an adjustment unit configured to adjust the ignition threshold based on the relative velocity in the pre-collision information after the TTI acceptability verification unit has passed; and a control unit configured to send a control signal to deploy the airbag when the acceleration signal exceeds the adjusted ignition threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 3 and 10).
With respect to claim 14, Roh modified supra teaches a computer program product comprising a computer program, wherein, when executed by a processor, the computer program implements the method according to claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 9, and apparent from at least Figs. 1-6 in view of at least ¶ 0035, 0044 & 0065 of Roh).
With respect to claim 15, Roh modified supra teaches an airbag control system, comprising: the device according to claim 9 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9); an acceleration sensor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9); and an airbag (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9), wherein the device is configured to determine whether to deploy the airbag based on the acceleration signal provided by the acceleration sensor and the pre-collision information provided by the autonomous driving system via an in-vehicle network [as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 9, and apparent from at least Figs. 2 & 3 of Roh (also, see at least Fig. 1 of Park)].
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Park, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0048406 to Ribero et al. (hereinafter: “Ribero”).
With respect to claim 5, Roh modified supra teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein performing the signal activation verification on the pre-collision information comprises: verifying whether the pre-collision time to impact (TTI) is less than or equal to a first threshold (apparent from at least Figs. 4-5 of Roh and verifying whether the relative velocity is greater than or equal to a second threshold (apparent from at least Figs. 4-5 of Roh); however, Roh appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the method further includes verifying whether the target type is a tree or utility pole (because a tree and a utility pole are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
Ribero teaches an analogous method including verifying whether a target type is a tree or another vehicle (as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0023 & 0086).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the control method of Roh with the teachings of Ribero to include verifying whether a target type is a tree to beneficially enable different types of detected objects to be differentiated from one another, including to differentiate a mobile type object (e.g., a vehicle type object) from a stationary type object (e.g., a tree type object), when evaluating collision risk for the vehicle.
With respect to claim 12, Roh modified supra teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the signal activation verification unit is configured to: verify whether the target type is a tree or utility pole; verify whether the pre-collision time to impact (TTI) is less than or equal to a first threshold; and verify whether the relative velocity is greater than or equal to a second threshold (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 5 and 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights