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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 15a, 31, Lvw, dp, Ycrash, α, R, A, and B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 line 2 reads "vehicle ," which appears to be a typographical error and should read "vehicle," to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 limitation(s) is/are:
In claim(s) 1, the “vehicle collision module” in the limitation “determining the collision risk in real time, by a vehicle collision module” invokes 112(f) as “module” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the determination of a collision risk.
In claim(s) 15, the “vehicle control module” in the limitation “vehicle control module configured to control the ego vehicle” invokes 112(f) as “module” is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the control of a vehicle.
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.
Regarding the vehicle collision module and the vehicle control module, a review of the specification does not appear to disclose the corresponding structure to these claim limitations. (See the 112(b) rejections below.)
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 6 discloses that a data-drop compensation is based on an action radius and maximum speed limit of an object. A review of the specification does not provide an adequate amount of direction for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use this aspect of the invention. Instead, ¶ 0009 merely restates the claim language, and ¶ 0065 merely recites that the estimation of an object’s action radius and maximum speed limit allow for data-drop compensation to be performed with no details on how data-drop compensation is actually performed with these variables. Since “data-drop compensation” does not appear to be a readily well understood term within the prior art, and the applicant fails to adequately provide direction on how to make and use this aspect of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to perform undue experimentation to arrive at a solution that may adequately compensate for a “data-drop”, when understood prima facie. Thus, the disclosure is not enabling for one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention as required by 112(a). See MPEP ¶ 2164.01.
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 1-11 and 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.
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, there is not sufficient detail provided within the specification to understand how the limitation of data-drop compensation is made or used. Therefore, the exact metes and bounds for what data-drop compensation encompasses cannot be ascertained. For the purpose of examination, claim 6 will be understood as a recitation of obtaining an action radius and maximum speed limit of an object since at least ¶ 0065 discloses that the estimation of these features allows for data-drop compensation.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “vehicle collision module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed above, there does not appear to be support within the disclosure for the structural aspects of the collision module. It is unclear if the module is a hardware component or a software component. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the vehicle collision module will be interpreted as a program that, when implemented, performs the functional steps.
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation “vehicle control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed above, there does not appear to be support within the disclosure for the structural aspects of the control module. It is unclear if the module is a hardware or software component. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, the vehicle control module will be interpreted as a conventional control unit, controller, or processor that can implement the function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas Lars et al. US 20030055563 A1 (hereinafter Lars) in view of Wang et al. CN 114360292 A (hereinafter Wang; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 1 and 12,
Lars teaches
A system for warning of a collision risk with a dynamic object (¶ 0015 discloses an object with a velocity) in all directions around an ego vehicle (¶ 0014 “vehicle”), the system comprising:
a positioning sensor installed in the ego vehicle and configured to sense a position of the dynamic object (¶ 0015 discloses a radar can sense the location of the object),
wherein the collision risk is estimated in real time (¶ 0014-0018 discloses collision determination and avoidance using future state predictions which suggests the method is done in real time) using the positioning sensor (¶ 0015 discloses using the detection data to predict future positions of an object which is used in ¶ 0016-0017 to determine a collision probability) by incorporating vehicle turning information into driving information of the ego vehicle (¶ 0014 discloses considering a rate of direction change of the vehicle for future position detections which is used in ¶ 0016-0017 to determine a collision probability) and a position of the dynamic object and a speed of the dynamic object (¶ 0015 discloses using an object’s current velocity and position to predict future positions which is used in ¶ 0016-0017 to determine a collision probability),
wherein the collision risk is estimated in real time using a collision probability density function (¶ 0014-0017 discloses generating probability density functions, hereinafter PDFs, for future locations of a vehicle and an object and using the PDFs to form a joint PDF wherein regions of collision can be determined) and a collision probability area (¶ 0017 discloses integrating the joint PDF to determine areas of conflict to obtain the probability of collision), based on a time delay (¶ 0038 discloses future position predictions are a number of iterations such that the time in the future predicted is the same or longer than the time it takes to come to a complete stop; examiner considers this reasonably applicable a time delay as it includes the delay time period a driver would require to come to a complete stop and at least ¶ 0012 of the instant application discloses the delay may include a driver delay).
Lars does not teach
a positioning sensor installed in the ego vehicle and further configured to sense a position of the ego vehicle,
wherein the collision risk is estimated in real time by a vehicle collision module.
Wang teaches
a positioning sensor installed in the ego vehicle and further configured to sense a position of the ego vehicle (¶ n0041 discloses an ultrawide band positioning module installed on a vehicle determines the vehicle’s current position),
wherein the collision risk is estimated in real time by a vehicle collision module (¶ n0114 discloses that a collision avoidance method is implemented using a computer program; see Abstract for more details on the method).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Wang such that the sensors of Lars can further include the ultrawide band positioning module of Wang and the method of Lars can be performed using a program as taught by Wang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve positioning accuracy at the centimeter level as taught by Wang (¶ n0046) and to improve reproducibility of the method by having the method be implemented by a program.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches that
the position of the dynamic object and the speed of the dynamic object are estimated based on a Kalman filter (¶ 0034-0038 disclose that a Kalman filter is used to obtain future predictions of an object in the form of a discrete state space description that includes position and velocity of the object).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 12 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches
controlling the ego vehicle based on the estimated collision risk (¶ 0039 discloses executing avoidance maneuvers in reaction to a collision probability).
Lars does not teach
a vehicle control module configured to configured to control the ego vehicle based on the estimated collision risk.
Wang further teaches
a vehicle control module configured to configured to control the ego vehicle based on the estimated collision risk (¶ n0076-0077 discloses a control unit of a vehicle controls the vehicle to stop operation when a collision risk is detected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the further teachings of Wang such that collision responsive control of Lars can be performed by a control unit as taught by Wang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce latency of action performance by having the action be autonomously performed by a vehicle’s control unit.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lar as modified by Wang as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zeitler et al. US 20030028323 A1 (hereinafter Zeitler).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claims 1 and 12 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches that
the collision risk is determined in real time (¶ 0016-0017 discloses using predicted future locations to determine the probability of collision) based on an initial position of the ego vehicle (¶ 0014 discloses predicting future locations of the vehicle based on a current position) and the dynamic object (¶ 0015 discloses determining future positions of an object based on current position of the object) and a relative position over time (¶ 0016 discloses the joint PDF indicates relative positions at a plurality of future occurrences).
Lars does not teach that
an initial position of the ego vehicle is measured by UWB (ultra-wideband) sensors installed in the ego vehicle.
Wang further teaches that
an initial position of the ego vehicle is measured by UWB (ultra-wideband) sensors installed in the ego vehicle (¶ n0041 discloses that a UWB positioning module pre-installed on a target vehicle collects position data of the target vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the further teachings of Wang such that the vehicle positioning determination of Lars can be performed using the UWB positioning module of Wang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve positioning accuracy at the centimeter level as taught by Wang (¶ n0046).
Lars does not teach that
an initial position of the dynamic object is measured by UWB (ultra-wideband) sensors installed in the ego vehicle.
Zeitler teaches that
an initial position of the dynamic object is measured by UWB (ultra-wideband) sensors installed in the ego vehicle (¶ 0059 discloses that a UWB radar installed on an AGV can be used to determine an object’s position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Zeitler. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the UWB radar of Zeitler for the more generic radar of Lars. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting objects in an environment renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lar as modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nessler et al. DE 102017210377 A1 (hereinafter Nessler; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lars does not teach that
the turning information of the ego vehicle includes a steering angle based on an Ackermann model.
Nessler teaches that
the turning information of the ego vehicle includes a steering angle based on an Ackermann model (¶ 0011 discloses that a steering angle of a vehicle can be determined by an average of the steering angles of the left and right wheels according to Ackermann steering geometry wherein the steering angle can further be used for calculations related to collision risk assessment).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Nessler such that the direction and rate of direction change of Lars can incorporate the Ackermann steering geometry based steering angle of Nessler. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the steering angle information of Nessler for the direction information of Lars. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of indicating the current heading direction renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars as modified by Wang as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Jie et al. CN 118781857 A (hereinafter Jie; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claims 1 and 12 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches that
the estimated collision risk is further based on a braking time of the ego vehicle (¶ 0038 discloses that a number of predicted time steps is based on the braking time of a vehicle).
Lars does not teach that
the estimated collision risk is further based on a braking distance of the ego vehicle, and the braking distance is a quadratic function of a speed of the ego vehicle.
Jie teaches that
the estimated collision risk is further based on a braking distance of the ego vehicle (¶ n0036-n0048 discloses that a collision warning is issued if an arrival time difference is greater than a time difference between arrival at a collision point wherein the arrival time difference is based on a minimum safe distance which is based on a vehicle braking distance), and the braking distance is a quadratic function of a speed of the ego vehicle (untranslated ¶ 0035 shows that the vehicle braking distance is a quadratic function based on vehicle speed; see ¶ n0036 for translated explanation of variables).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Jie such that a collision can further be detected based at least partially on the vehicle’s braking distance as taught by Jie. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the collision avoidance by considering the distance that a vehicle may travel when attempting to avoid a collision such that a collision warning can be appropriately provided within a react-able distance constraint such that a collision can be adequately avoided.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches that
the time delay includes a communication delay or a driver delay (¶ 0038 discloses future position predictions are a number of iterations such that the time in the future predicted is the same or longer than the time it takes to come to a complete stop; examiner considers this reasonably applicable a time delay as this indicates a time a driver would require to come to a complete stop).
Alternatively, Jie may be relied upon to teach this aspect. Jie teaches that
the time delay includes a driver delay (¶ n0036-n0048 discloses that a collision warning is issued if an arrival time difference is greater than a time difference between arrival at a collision point wherein the arrival time difference is based on a minimum safe distance which is based on a driver’s reaction time; see also untranslated ¶ 0035 regarding the minimum safe distance equation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Jie such that a collision can further be detected based at least partially on the driver’s reaction time as taught by Jie. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the collision avoidance by considering the distance that a vehicle may travel when attempting to avoid a collision such that a collision warning can be appropriately provided within a react-able distance constraint such that a collision can be adequately avoided.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars as modified by Wang as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Packer et al. US 20200086855 A1 (hereinafter Packer).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above.
Lars does not teach teaches that
a data-drop compensation of the dynamic object is based on an action radius of the dynamic object and a maximum speed limit of the dynamic object.
Packer teaches that
a data-drop compensation of the dynamic object is based on an action radius of the dynamic object (¶ 0034 discloses expanding a buffer region around a detected object based on the object type and determining collision based on the buffer region; examiner understands this buffer region functions equivalent to an action radius as it exemplifies a region that an object acts within; examiner understands that knowledge of an object’s action radius functionally allows for data drop compensation in light of ¶ 0065 of the instant application) and a maximum speed limit of the dynamic object (¶ 0089 discloses determining entry and exit times into a region of path overlap based on object maximum speed to determine potential for collision; examiner understands that knowledge of a vehicle’s maximum speed functionally allows for data drop compensation in light of ¶ 0065 of the instant application).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Packer such that a buffer region around an object and a maximum speed of the object can be defined and further used in collision determination as taught by Packer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the accuracy of the collision probability assessment and improve safety by implementing a radial region for checking collisions around an object.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars as modified by Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. US 20240253665 A1 (hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Lars does not teach that
a distance from the center of the dynamic object to an edge of the dynamic object is shifted in the collision probability density function, based on a width of the dynamic object and a length of the dynamic object.
Gupta teaches that
a distance from the center of the dynamic object to an edge of the dynamic object is shifted in the collision probability density function, based on a width of the dynamic object and a length of the dynamic object (¶ 0011-0012 discloses performing a PDF to determine locations at which a location of a centroid of an object would result in a collision between an object and a vehicle; centroids are well known in the art to be geometric centers, i.e. shifted based on dimensions, such as width and length, of the geometric object).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Gupta such that centroid based collision risk as taught by Gupta can be utilized with the PDFs of Lars. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to simplify calculations and reduce processing time by reducing objects to centroid point locations.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lars as modified by Wang as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Han CN 116788272 A (hereinafter Han; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 16, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claims 1 and 12 as detailed above.
Lars further teaches
providing a warning to an occupant of the ego vehicle based on the determined collision risk (¶ 0033 discloses a collision avoidance system provides a warning signal when a calculated probability is higher than a, preferably high, preset limit; see also 0039).
Lars does not teach
displaying a warning to an occupant of the ego vehicle based on the determined collision risk,
wherein the warning includes a message or image displayed to the occupant via an HUD (Head-Up Display), an AVN (Audio, Video, Navigation) device, or an augmented reality device.
Han teaches
displaying a warning to an occupant of the ego vehicle based on the determined collision risk (¶ n0031 discloses displaying a prompt indicating a surrounding object when the object enters the prompt range),
wherein the warning includes a message or image displayed to the occupant via an HUD (Head-Up Display) (¶ n0028 discloses a HUD is used for displaying notifications to the driver; see Figures 3-6 regarding examples of displayed notifications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the teachings of Han such that a visual indication of an object can be displayed as the collision warning of Lars on a vehicle’s HUD as taught by Han. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user attention and enhance user experience as taught by Han (¶ n0065).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Lars reference teaches all of claim 10 as detailed above.
Lars does not teach that
the image includes a direction and a distance of the dynamic object from the ego vehicle using an indicator and an arrow, wherein the arrow points to a current position of the dynamic object, and wherein the distance between the ego vehicle and the dynamic object is represented by varying colors of the arrow based on the distance between the ego vehicle and the dynamic object.
Han further teaches that
the image includes a direction (¶ n0028 discloses that the displayed image indicates the direction of surrounding obstacles) and a distance of the dynamic object from the ego vehicle (¶ n0028 discloses that the displayed image indicates the distance to surrounding objects) using an indicator and an arrow (Figures 3-6 shows example text indicator and arrows for displayed notifications), wherein the arrow points to a current position of the dynamic object (¶ n0031 discloses that an arrow indicates the direction of an object relative to the vehicle’s direction of travel: front, rear, left, right, left front, left rear, right front, or right rear), and wherein the distance between the ego vehicle and the dynamic object is represented by varying colors of the arrow based on the distance between the ego vehicle and the dynamic object (¶ n0035 discloses that a display color of the directional arrow can be changed according to the relative distance between the vehicle and the object).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Lars to incorporate the further teachings of Han such that a visual indication of an object can be displayed as the collision warning of Lars wherein the indication can be an arrow pointing towards the direction of the object and can further change color based on the distance between the vehicle and object as taught by Han. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve user attention and enhance user experience as taught by Han (¶ n0065).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murahashi et al. US 20210309254 A1 discloses generating a collision probability map using probability densities.
Pei et al. US 20250319866 A1 discloses determining a risk of collision and a collision region based on vehicle and obstacle state information.
Simon et al. US 20060041381 A1 discloses determining an accident risk using probability density functions.
Yahata et al. US 20250010719 A1 discloses warning a driver of a high risk object using a vehicle’s HUD by pointing an arrow on the HUD in the direction of the object wherein markers on the HUD can change color based on the risk level.
Hruschka et al. DE 102018211514 A1 discloses determining an area of a probability density function to determine a collision risk.
Ye et al. WO 2022252999 A1 discloses determining a collision based on an Ackermann steering angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights