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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS)s submitted on 03/12/2026 and 06/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No JP2024-108393, filed on July 04, 2024.
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 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 1-2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Furmston et al (US 2012/0101711 A1) in view of Baba (US 2019/0061748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Furmston discloses a driving assistance device comprising: (see Furmston paras “0066-0070” “a collision warning apparatus”),
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to (see Furmston para “0068” “This data stream is fed to the input of a controller 202 which contains the processing circuitry linked to the memory. The controller 202 comprises a target identification means 203, a processor 205, a memory 204 and a program 212 which is stored in the memory 204”),
recognize another vehicle around a vehicle using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted on the vehicle (see Furmston paras “0008-0011”, “0067-0068” and “0081” “The at least one sensor may comprise a radar detector apparatus which is associated with the stationary vehicle and transmits radiation rearwards of the stationary vehicle”, “Additionally or alternatively the at least one sensor may comprise a video camera and the captured data stream may comprise a stream of captured video images.” and “the sensor is a radar sensor 101 which emits and then receives reflected signals returned from surfaces of target vehicles travelling towards the stationary host vehicle. The radar unit in this example is able to detect and monitor a number of vehicles at any one time”),
calculate a yaw rate of the other vehicle based on a speed vector of the other vehicle (see Furmston paras “0013” and “0070” “Target data may comprise data indicative of the position, velocity and yaw rate of the second target vehicle within the scene at a time within the second period of time. Velocity and yaw rate values provide more useful information than position alone on the future movement of a target vehicle. Yaw rate may be determined from the output of the radar sensor over a period of time by observing the change in a target's velocity vector” and “Yaw rate is estimated by looking at several snap-shots at separate time instances to see how a vehicle's velocity vector changes with time from which the change in direction over time can be determined”),
and estimate a predicted route of the other vehicle based on the yaw rate to calculate a time to collision until a point where the vehicle and the other vehicle collide with each other based on the estimated predicted route (see Furmston paras “0026”, “0030” and “0074” “the predicted future path being determined with reference to the stored reference data set which defines a safe path”, “This projection can be achieved based on the yaw rate of the moving vehicle” and “Predict the future path of the moving vehicle based on the current position, velocity and yaw rate”),
but Furmston fails to explicitly teach execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision.
However, Baba teaches execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision (see Baba paras “0020-0022” “The braking unit 32 is a unit that applies a brake to the own vehicle. When time-to-collision becomes shorter than a second predetermined time, which is set to be shorter than the first predetermined time, and thus the detection ECU 10 determines that the probability of collision between the object and the own vehicle becomes high, the braking unit 32 is activated in response to the control command from the detection ECU 10”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to provide a collision prediction apparatus that can improve the accuracy of collision prediction” as taught by Baba (paras. [0020-0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Furmston teaches wherein the processor calculates the yaw rate of the other vehicle by taking a difference between the latest detection value of the speed vector of the other vehicle and the previous detection value (see Furmston paras “0013” and “0070” “Target data may comprise data indicative of the position, velocity and yaw rate of the second target vehicle within the scene at a time within the second period of time. Velocity and yaw rate values provide more useful information than position alone on the future movement of a target vehicle” and “The target data contains measurements of a target vehicle's velocity, position and yaw rate at time intervals as the target moves through the scene. Velocity and position can be determined at an instant from the datastream output from the radar unit. Yaw rate is estimated by looking at several snap-shots at separate time instances to see how a vehicle's velocity vector changes with time from which the change in direction over time can be determined”).
Regarding claim 4, Furmston teaches wherein the processor estimates the predicted route of the other vehicle based on the latest value of the yaw rate (see Furmston para “0074” “Predict the future path of the moving vehicle based on the current position, velocity and yaw rate, if the predicted path crosses the vehicle a collision risk is identified”).
Regarding claim 7, but Furmston fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor decelerates the vehicle when the time to collision is equal to or less than a threshold value.
However, Baba teaches wherein the processor decelerates the vehicle when the time to collision is equal to or less than a threshold value (see Baba paras “0020-0022” “The braking unit 32 is a unit that applies a brake to the own vehicle. When time-to-collision becomes shorter than a second predetermined time, which is set to be shorter than the first predetermined time, and thus the detection ECU 10 determines that the probability of collision between the object and the own vehicle becomes high, the braking unit 32 is activated in response to the control command from the detection ECU 10”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to provide a collision prediction apparatus that can improve the accuracy of collision prediction” as taught by Baba (paras. [0020-0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Furmston discloses a driving assistance method comprising: (see Furmston paras “0066-0070” “a collision warning apparatus”),
causing a computer to recognize another vehicle around a vehicle using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted on the vehicle (see Furmston paras “0008-0011”, “0067-0068” and “0081” “The at least one sensor may comprise a radar detector apparatus which is associated with the stationary vehicle and transmits radiation rearwards of the stationary vehicle”, “Additionally or alternatively the at least one sensor may comprise a video camera and the captured data stream may comprise a stream of captured video images.” and “the sensor is a radar sensor 101 which emits and then receives reflected signals returned from surfaces of target vehicles travelling towards the stationary host vehicle. The radar unit in this example is able to detect and monitor a number of vehicles at any one time”),
calculate a yaw rate of the other vehicle based on a speed vector of the other vehicle (see Furmston paras “0013” and “0070” “Target data may comprise data indicative of the position, velocity and yaw rate of the second target vehicle within the scene at a time within the second period of time. Velocity and yaw rate values provide more useful information than position alone on the future movement of a target vehicle. Yaw rate may be determined from the output of the radar sensor over a period of time by observing the change in a target's velocity vector” and “Yaw rate is estimated by looking at several snap-shots at separate time instances to see how a vehicle's velocity vector changes with time from which the change in direction over time can be determined”),
and estimate a predicted route of the other vehicle based on the yaw rate to calculate a time to collision until a point where the vehicle and the other vehicle collide with each other based on the estimated predicted route (see Furmston paras “0026”, “0030” and “0074” “the predicted future path being determined with reference to the stored reference data set which defines a safe path”, “This projection can be achieved based on the yaw rate of the moving vehicle” and “Predict the future path of the moving vehicle based on the current position, velocity and yaw rate”),
but Furmston fails to explicitly teach execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision.
However, Baba teaches execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision (see Baba paras “0020-0022” “The braking unit 32 is a unit that applies a brake to the own vehicle. When time-to-collision becomes shorter than a second predetermined time, which is set to be shorter than the first predetermined time, and thus the detection ECU 10 determines that the probability of collision between the object and the own vehicle becomes high, the braking unit 32 is activated in response to the control command from the detection ECU 10”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to provide a collision prediction apparatus that can improve the accuracy of collision prediction” as taught by Baba (paras. [0020-0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Furmston discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that stores a program that causes a computer to (see Furmston para “0068” “This data stream is fed to the input of a controller 202 which contains the processing circuitry linked to the memory. The controller 202 comprises a target identification means 203, a processor 205, a memory 204 and a program 212 which is stored in the memory 204”),
recognize another vehicle around a vehicle using at least one of a camera and a radar mounted on the vehicle (see Furmston paras “0008-0011”, “0067-0068” and “0081” “The at least one sensor may comprise a radar detector apparatus which is associated with the stationary vehicle and transmits radiation rearwards of the stationary vehicle”, “Additionally or alternatively the at least one sensor may comprise a video camera and the captured data stream may comprise a stream of captured video images.” and “the sensor is a radar sensor 101 which emits and then receives reflected signals returned from surfaces of target vehicles travelling towards the stationary host vehicle. The radar unit in this example is able to detect and monitor a number of vehicles at any one time”),
calculate a yaw rate of the other vehicle based on a speed vector of the other vehicle (see Furmston paras “0013” and “0070” “Target data may comprise data indicative of the position, velocity and yaw rate of the second target vehicle within the scene at a time within the second period of time. Velocity and yaw rate values provide more useful information than position alone on the future movement of a target vehicle. Yaw rate may be determined from the output of the radar sensor over a period of time by observing the change in a target's velocity vector” and “Yaw rate is estimated by looking at several snap-shots at separate time instances to see how a vehicle's velocity vector changes with time from which the change in direction over time can be determined”),
and estimate a predicted route of the other vehicle based on the yaw rate to calculate a time to collision until a point where the vehicle and the other vehicle collide with each other based on the estimated predicted route (see Furmston paras “0026”, “0030” and “0074” “the predicted future path being determined with reference to the stored reference data set which defines a safe path”, “This projection can be achieved based on the yaw rate of the moving vehicle” and “Predict the future path of the moving vehicle based on the current position, velocity and yaw rate”),
but Furmston fails to explicitly teach execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision.
However, Baba teaches execute driving assistance for the vehicle in accordance with the calculated time to collision (see Baba paras “0020-0022” “The braking unit 32 is a unit that applies a brake to the own vehicle. When time-to-collision becomes shorter than a second predetermined time, which is set to be shorter than the first predetermined time, and thus the detection ECU 10 determines that the probability of collision between the object and the own vehicle becomes high, the braking unit 32 is activated in response to the control command from the detection ECU 10”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to provide a collision prediction apparatus that can improve the accuracy of collision prediction” as taught by Baba (paras. [0020-0022]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Furmston et al (US 2012/0101711 A1) in view of Baba (US 2019/0061748 A1) in further view of Neishaboori et al (US 2022/0397415 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Furmston fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor estimates the predicted route of the other vehicle based on an average value of the yaw rates calculated over a predetermined period of time in the past.
However, Neishaboori teaches wherein the processor estimates the predicted route of the other vehicle based on an average value of the yaw rates calculated over a predetermined period of time in the past (see Neishaboori paras “0035-0036” and “0054-0058” “The predicted location may be ascertained based on at least one or more of vehicle 102 reported location, direction, acceleration, yaw rate, and an extrapolation of any possible intended trajectory included in the connected message 120” and “An estimated time to overtake or intersect may also be given based on extrapolating one or more of the current instantaneous and/or average speeds (e.g., average taken over the past X seconds, using direct averaging or using a moving average with configurable weight parameters), instantaneous and/or average headings (average taken over the past X seconds, using direct averaging or using a moving average with configurable weight parameters), and yaw (instantaneous and/or average wherein the average is taken over the past X seconds, using direct averaging or using a moving average with configurable weight parameters) of the involved vehicles 102”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to estimate the predicted route based on an average value of yaw rates calculated over a predetermined period of time” as taught by Neishaboori (paras. [0054-0057]) in order to provide a more stable and accurate estimate of the vehicle’s future trajectory.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Furmston et al (US 2012/0101711 A1) in view of Baba (US 2019/0061748 A1) in further view of Kozono et al (US 2024/0127696 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Furmston fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor estimates the predicted route as a stationary circle defined by the yaw rate.
However, Kozono teaches wherein the processor estimates the predicted route as a stationary circle defined by the yaw rate (see Kozono paras “0004-0005”, “0034” and “0075” “the ECU 11 may calculate the own vehicle predicted path as a circle having a radius obtained from the position, a traveling direction, the yaw rate” and “the ECU 11 calculates the own vehicle predicted path indicated by a circle having a radius obtained from the yaw rate 2”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to estimate the predicted route as a circle defined by the vehicle’s yaw rate” as taught by Kozono (paras. [0034] - [0075]) in order to improve a trajectory prediction and collision determination while reducing computational complexity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Furmston et al (US 2012/0101711 A1) in view of Baba (US 2019/0061748 A1) in further view of Gabriel et al (US 2025/0157333 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Furmston fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor estimates the predicted route as a stationary circle defined by the yaw rate.
However, Gabriel teaches wherein the processor estimates the predicted route as a stationary circle defined by the yaw rate (see Gabriel para “0095” “when the other vehicle 600 is away from the host vehicle 2, the time until the other vehicle 600 collides with the host vehicle 2 becomes long, and thus, grid points having a risk of collision with an apparent obstacle are calculated mainly in front of the host vehicle 2. On the other hand, as illustrated in FIG. 6(b), when the other vehicle 600 further approaches the host vehicle 2 at the timing T=2, the time until the other vehicle 600 collides with the host vehicle 2 is shortened, and thus, grid points having a risk of collision with an apparent obstacle are mainly calculated with respect to the side of the host vehicle 2. That is, in FIG. 6(a), the grid point 624-1 far from the host vehicle 2 is calculated as a grid point having a risk of collision with an apparent obstacle, whereas in FIG. 6(b), the grid point 624-2 far from the host vehicle 2 is a grid point having no risk of collision”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furmston for a collision warning apparatus “to improve the accuracy of collision prediction by evaluating collision-risk points based om time-to-collision” as taught by Gabriel (para. [0095]) in order to enable more reliable and timely driving assistance decisions to avoid vehicle collisions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-5869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HOSSAM M ABD EL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights