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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Application filed on July 2, 2025. Claims 1-9 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 2, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 5-6 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.
In regards to claims 5-6, the claims recite “at least one of… accelerator operation amount … brake operation amount… and the longitudinal acceleration… and the predicted value …”, however it is unclear if the “at least of” applied to this entire list or to only a portion of it, rendering the claim indefinite. The examiner has interpreted the claim as only requiring one of these four recited options.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 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
Claims 1-9 recite an apparatus/system, therefore claims 1-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 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 claim 1 includes limitations that recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller, the controller being configured to execute:
receiving probe information in real time, the probe information including a position of a target vehicle acquired by a GPS apparatus mounted on the target vehicle and a wheel velocity of each wheel sensed by a wheel velocity sensor of the target vehicle;
referring to the probe information to determine whether the target vehicle is traveling in a vehicle skidability evaluation section or not in real time;
calculating an actual measurement value of a wheel velocity difference of the target vehicle according to the probe information when the target vehicle is traveling in the evaluation section;
acquiring a reference value for the wheel velocity difference in the evaluation section;
calculating an evaluation parameter using the actual measurement value and the reference value;
evaluating vehicle skidability due to influence of change in road surface conditions in the evaluation section, according to the evaluation parameter; and
outputting result information about the evaluation to an external apparatus.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mental process. For example, "referring to the probe information…" “calculating an actual measurement …”, “calculating an evaluation parameter …”, and "evaluating vehicle skidability..." encompass mental processes as a human can perform these limitations using observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. "referring to the probe information…" and "evaluating vehicle skidability..." involves a human observing and/or evaluating information that indicates a skidability of a vehicle and “calculating an actual measurement …” and “calculating an evaluation parameter …”involves a human making a judgment or using paper and pencil to determine a evaluation parameter value and the skidability value based on this. Thus, the claim recites at least a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 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 idea 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 as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
An information processing apparatus comprising a controller, the controller being configured to execute:
receiving probe information in real time, the probe information including a position of a target vehicle acquired by a GPS apparatus mounted on the target vehicle and a wheel velocity of each wheel sensed by a wheel velocity sensor of the target vehicle;
referring to the probe information to determine whether the target vehicle is traveling in a vehicle skidability evaluation section or not in real time;
calculating an actual measurement value of a wheel velocity difference of the target vehicle according to the probe information when the target vehicle is traveling in the evaluation section;
acquiring a reference value for the wheel velocity difference in the evaluation section;
calculating an evaluation parameter using the actual measurement value and the reference value;
evaluating vehicle skidability due to influence of change in road surface conditions in the evaluation section, according to the evaluation parameter; and
outputting result information about the evaluation to an external apparatus.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of "An information processing apparatus comprising a controller” the examiner submits that this limitation characterizes the method as being associated with an information processing apparatus, which merely amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the claim limitation “receiving probe information …”, “acquiring a reference value…”, and “outputting result information…” does not amount to an inventive concept since it is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely a form of data collection and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The examiner submits that these limitations are mere data collection and outputting components to apply the above-noted abstract idea within an indicated field of use (MPEP §2106.05).
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 or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, 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 in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does 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.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “receiving probe information …”, “acquiring a reference value…”, and “outputting result information…” amounts to extra-solution data gathering and outputting. Additionally, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). With respect to “receiving probe information …”, “acquiring a reference value…”, and “outputting result information…” it was ruled within Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which are recited within MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that mere data collection or receiving/obtaining and transmitting of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic matter, as it is here. Additionally, “a controller” are each generic computing components that merely apply the judicial exception (See 2106.05(f)). Additionally, “An information processing apparatus comprising a controller” is merely a technological environment or field of use as the limitations merely link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 2 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1, and is therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 3-9 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1 and 2, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to "significantly more" for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laine et al. (US 20180319380).
In regards to claim 1, Laine discloses of an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (“A control system is provided for a vehicle including an autonomous emergency braking system, characterized in that the control system includes: a brake control arrangement adapted to apply a friction-estimating braking when the autonomous emergency braking system has initiated a possible intervention; a brake force capacity estimation arrangement adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the applied friction-estimating braking; a road information arrangement adapted to obtain information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle; a lateral tyre force prediction arrangement adapted to predict lateral tyre force needed during autonomous emergency braking based on the obtained information about road curvature; and a brake strategy adaptation arrangement configured to adapt the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system based on the estimated brake force capacity and the predicted lateral tyre force needed.” (Abstract)), the controller being configured to execute:
receiving probe information in real time, the probe information including a position of a target vehicle acquired by a GPS apparatus mounted on the target vehicle and a wheel velocity of each wheel sensed by a wheel velocity sensor of the target vehicle (“The road information means 30 is adapted to obtain information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle. The information may for example include at least one radius r of the road or lane ahead of the vehicle 10, see for example FIG. 4 which will be explained more in the following. The information about road curvature may be obtained from at least one of a camera 38 and a navigation system 40 of the vehicle 10. The navigation system 40 may for example be a built-in GPS.” (Para 0034), “The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032));
referring to the probe information to determine whether the target vehicle is traveling in a vehicle skidability evaluation section or not in real time (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “The present invention is based on the understanding that applying a “standard” autonomous emergency braking (e.g. the aforementioned ≥4 m/s2 deceleration) when an object is detected in a curve ahead of the vehicle may cause the vehicle to skid off the road (or leave its lane) because the applied braking may severely reduce the lateral tyre force, which lateral tyre force is needed to stay on the road (or in the lane). To this end, by predicting lateral tyre force needed during emergency braking based on information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system may be adapted so that the vehicle does not skid off the road (or lane) during the emergency braking in the curve.” (Para 0006));
calculating an actual measurement value of a wheel velocity difference of the target vehicle according to the probe information when the target vehicle is traveling in the evaluation section (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “The present invention is based on the understanding that applying a “standard” autonomous emergency braking (e.g. the aforementioned ≥4 m/s2 deceleration) when an object is detected in a curve ahead of the vehicle may cause the vehicle to skid off the road (or leave its lane) because the applied braking may severely reduce the lateral tyre force, which lateral tyre force is needed to stay on the road (or in the lane). To this end, by predicting lateral tyre force needed during emergency braking based on information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system may be adapted so that the vehicle does not skid off the road (or lane) during the emergency braking in the curve.” (Para 0006), “However, in accordance with the control method, when the autonomous emergency braking system 16 has initiated the possible intervention, a friction-estimating braking is applied (S1). Based on the applied friction-estimating braking, the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 is estimated as a function of longitudinal wheel slip (S2). Furthermore, information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, for example the radius r, is obtained (S3). Based on the obtained information about road curvature, lateral tyre force needed during autonomous emergency braking is predicted (S4). Then, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system 16 is adapted (S5) based on the estimated brake force capacity and the predicted lateral tyre force needed.” (Para 0038), “Then, the autonomous emergency braking system 16 may automatically brake the vehicle 10 in accordance with the adapted braking strategy in order to avoid colliding with an object 22. If the friction-estimating braking reveals that the friction against the road surface 36 is relatively low (e.g. because of wet, icy or snowy road conditions) and/or the curve 46 is tight, the brake strategy may typically be adapted so that the autonomous emergency braking (i.e. the emergency braking phase) is initiated earlier and with a lower longitudinal brake force than under ideal conditions (dry, straight road). In this way, the vehicle 10 can stay in its lane 48 during the emergency braking. Reference sign 10′ in FIG. 4 designates a stop position of the vehicle in case the object 22 is stationary (s is the required braking distance). Alternatively 10′ illustrates a state wherein the vehicle has slowed down so much that it travels with the same or lower speed than moving object 22′ (TTC is infinite).” (Para 0039));
acquiring a reference value for the wheel velocity difference in the evaluation section (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “The present invention is based on the understanding that applying a “standard” autonomous emergency braking (e.g. the aforementioned ≥4 m/s2 deceleration) when an object is detected in a curve ahead of the vehicle may cause the vehicle to skid off the road (or leave its lane) because the applied braking may severely reduce the lateral tyre force, which lateral tyre force is needed to stay on the road (or in the lane). To this end, by predicting lateral tyre force needed during emergency braking based on information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system may be adapted so that the vehicle does not skid off the road (or lane) during the emergency braking in the curve.” (Para 0006);
calculating an evaluation parameter using the actual measurement value and the reference value (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “The present invention is based on the understanding that applying a “standard” autonomous emergency braking (e.g. the aforementioned ≥4 m/s2 deceleration) when an object is detected in a curve ahead of the vehicle may cause the vehicle to skid off the road (or leave its lane) because the applied braking may severely reduce the lateral tyre force, which lateral tyre force is needed to stay on the road (or in the lane). To this end, by predicting lateral tyre force needed during emergency braking based on information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system may be adapted so that the vehicle does not skid off the road (or lane) during the emergency braking in the curve.” (Para 0006);
evaluating vehicle skidability due to influence of change in road surface conditions in the evaluation section, according to the evaluation parameter (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “The present invention is based on the understanding that applying a “standard” autonomous emergency braking (e.g. the aforementioned ≥4 m/s2 deceleration) when an object is detected in a curve ahead of the vehicle may cause the vehicle to skid off the road (or leave its lane) because the applied braking may severely reduce the lateral tyre force, which lateral tyre force is needed to stay on the road (or in the lane). To this end, by predicting lateral tyre force needed during emergency braking based on information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system may be adapted so that the vehicle does not skid off the road (or lane) during the emergency braking in the curve.” (Para 0006), “However, in accordance with the control method, when the autonomous emergency braking system 16 has initiated the possible intervention, a friction-estimating braking is applied (S1). Based on the applied friction-estimating braking, the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 is estimated as a function of longitudinal wheel slip (S2). Furthermore, information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, for example the radius r, is obtained (S3). Based on the obtained information about road curvature, lateral tyre force needed during autonomous emergency braking is predicted (S4). Then, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system 16 is adapted (S5) based on the estimated brake force capacity and the predicted lateral tyre force needed.” (Para 0038), “Then, the autonomous emergency braking system 16 may automatically brake the vehicle 10 in accordance with the adapted braking strategy in order to avoid colliding with an object 22. If the friction-estimating braking reveals that the friction against the road surface 36 is relatively low (e.g. because of wet, icy or snowy road conditions) and/or the curve 46 is tight, the brake strategy may typically be adapted so that the autonomous emergency braking (i.e. the emergency braking phase) is initiated earlier and with a lower longitudinal brake force than under ideal conditions (dry, straight road). In this way, the vehicle 10 can stay in its lane 48 during the emergency braking. Reference sign 10′ in FIG. 4 designates a stop position of the vehicle in case the object 22 is stationary (s is the required braking distance). Alternatively 10′ illustrates a state wherein the vehicle has slowed down so much that it travels with the same or lower speed than moving object 22′ (TTC is infinite).” (Para 0039)); and
outputting result information about the evaluation to an external apparatus “However, in accordance with the control method, when the autonomous emergency braking system 16 has initiated the possible intervention, a friction-estimating braking is applied (S1). Based on the applied friction-estimating braking, the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 is estimated as a function of longitudinal wheel slip (S2). Furthermore, information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle, for example the radius r, is obtained (S3). Based on the obtained information about road curvature, lateral tyre force needed during autonomous emergency braking is predicted (S4). Then, the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system 16 is adapted (S5) based on the estimated brake force capacity and the predicted lateral tyre force needed.” (Para 0038), “Then, the autonomous emergency braking system 16 may automatically brake the vehicle 10 in accordance with the adapted braking strategy in order to avoid colliding with an object 22. If the friction-estimating braking reveals that the friction against the road surface 36 is relatively low (e.g. because of wet, icy or snowy road conditions) and/or the curve 46 is tight, the brake strategy may typically be adapted so that the autonomous emergency braking (i.e. the emergency braking phase) is initiated earlier and with a lower longitudinal brake force than under ideal conditions (dry, straight road). In this way, the vehicle 10 can stay in its lane 48 during the emergency braking. Reference sign 10′ in FIG. 4 designates a stop position of the vehicle in case the object 22 is stationary (s is the required braking distance). Alternatively 10′ illustrates a state wherein the vehicle has slowed down so much that it travels with the same or lower speed than moving object 22′ (TTC is infinite).” (Para 0039), “Furthermore, if the autonomous emergency braking system 16 determines, based on the adapted brake strategy, that the vehicle 10 cannot brake to avoid the object 22 (for example the braking distance s may be too long or the TTC may be shorter than the emergency brake phase 24b′), the driver of the vehicle 10 may be alerted accordingly. To this end, the control system 18 may further comprise alerting means 52 (FIG. 1). The alerting means may for example be adapted to send out a visual and/or acoustic warning that an accident cannot be avoided by braking and that steering is the only option left. The control system 18 may further comprise assistance means 54 adapted to assist the driver in the steering manoeuvre by automatically braking individual wheels of the vehicle 10 to improve (e.g. increase or decrease) yaw motion of the vehicle 10 needed to avoid the object 22. This may for example be accomplished by reducing the reference yaw rate band (e.g. excluding the deadband) for yaw control of the vehicle 10.” (Para 0041)).
In regards to claim 2, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regards to claim 3, Laine discloses of the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the acquiring of the reference value comprises acquiring a wheel velocity difference when the target vehicle travels in the evaluation section at reference time (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “A control method corresponding to the control system 16 will now be described with further reference to FIGS. 4-5. FIG. 4 shows the vehicle 10 entering a curve 46. The curve has a radius r. The vehicle 10 is positioned in its ego lane 48. The vehicle 10 has a mass m and a speed vx. The autonomous emergency braking system 16 of the vehicle 10 detects an object 22 in the curve 46 ahead of the vehicle 10, and a possible intervention is initiated. Just applying the autonomous emergency braking without first adapting the braking strategy could cause the vehicle 10 to exit its lane 48 and even skid off the road, as illustrated by arrow 50, in particular if the road is slippery and/or if the curve 46 is tight (small radius r).” (Para 0037), “Then, the autonomous emergency braking system 16 may automatically brake the vehicle 10 in accordance with the adapted braking strategy in order to avoid colliding with an object 22. If the friction-estimating braking reveals that the friction against the road surface 36 is relatively low (e.g. because of wet, icy or snowy road conditions) and/or the curve 46 is tight, the brake strategy may typically be adapted so that the autonomous emergency braking (i.e. the emergency braking phase) is initiated earlier and with a lower longitudinal brake force than under ideal conditions (dry, straight road). In this way, the vehicle 10 can stay in its lane 48 during the emergency braking. Reference sign 10′ in FIG. 4 designates a stop position of the vehicle in case the object 22 is stationary (s is the required braking distance). Alternatively 10′ illustrates a state wherein the vehicle has slowed down so much that it travels with the same or lower speed than moving object 22′ (TTC is infinite).” (Para 0039), see also Para 0035)).
In regards to claim 4, Laine discloses of the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the acquiring of the reference value comprises:
acquiring a curve shape in the evaluation section (“The road information means 30 is adapted to obtain information about road curvature ahead of the vehicle. The information may for example include at least one radius r of the road or lane ahead of the vehicle 10, see for example FIG. 4 which will be explained more in the following. The information about road curvature may be obtained from at least one of a camera 38 and a navigation system 40 of the vehicle 10. The navigation system 40 may for example be a built-in GPS.” (Para 0034));
and calculating the reference value according to a formula for predicting a wheel velocity difference caused due to the curve shape (“The lateral tyre force prediction means 32 is connected to the road information means 30. The lateral tyre force prediction means 32 is adapted to predict lateral tyre force Fy needed during autonomous emergency braking based on the information about road curvature obtained by the road information means 30. The lateral tyre force Fy needed may be predicted using the formula Fy=(mv×2)/r, where m is the mass of the vehicle 10 and vx is the speed of the vehicle 10. Analogously, Fy=may, where ay is the lateral acceleration of the vehicle 10. The lateral tyre force Fy needed during autonomous emergency braking may be predicted at least once during the collision warning phase, but it can be also be predicted during the emergency braking phase, so that the brake strategy of the autonomous emergency braking system 16 can be updated.” (Para 0035), “A control method corresponding to the control system 16 will now be described with further reference to FIGS. 4-5. FIG. 4 shows the vehicle 10 entering a curve 46. The curve has a radius r. The vehicle 10 is positioned in its ego lane 48. The vehicle 10 has a mass m and a speed vx. The autonomous emergency braking system 16 of the vehicle 10 detects an object 22 in the curve 46 ahead of the vehicle 10, and a possible intervention is initiated. Just applying the autonomous emergency braking without first adapting the braking strategy could cause the vehicle 10 to exit its lane 48 and even skid off the road, as illustrated by arrow 50, in particular if the road is slippery and/or if the curve 46 is tight (small radius r).” (Para 0037), “Then, the autonomous emergency braking system 16 may automatically brake the vehicle 10 in accordance with the adapted braking strategy in order to avoid colliding with an object 22. If the friction-estimating braking reveals that the friction against the road surface 36 is relatively low (e.g. because of wet, icy or snowy road conditions) and/or the curve 46 is tight, the brake strategy may typically be adapted so that the autonomous emergency braking (i.e. the emergency braking phase) is initiated earlier and with a lower longitudinal brake force than under ideal conditions (dry, straight road). In this way, the vehicle 10 can stay in its lane 48 during the emergency braking. Reference sign 10′ in FIG. 4 designates a stop position of the vehicle in case the object 22 is stationary (s is the required braking distance). Alternatively 10′ illustrates a state wherein the vehicle has slowed down so much that it travels with the same or lower speed than moving object 22′ (TTC is infinite).” (Para 0039)).
In regards to claim 5, Laine discloses of the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the probe information includes at least one of an accelerator operation amount, a brake operation amount, and longitudinal acceleration of the target vehicle in the evaluation section (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “wherein BrakePressure comes from the friction-estimating braking, ToWheelTorque is the brake factor, pressure to gained brake torque [bar/Nm], (dwheelspeed/dt) is the wheel acceleration, InertiaWheel is the rotational inertia of the studied wheel, and WheelRadius is the radius of the studied wheel. BrakePressure may have the unit [bar], ToWheelTorque may have the unit [Nm/bar], (dwheelspeed/dt) may have the unit [rad/ŝ2], InertiaWheel may have the unit [kgm̂2], and WheelRadius may have the unit [m]. BrakePresure may be sampled several times during the friction-estimating braking in order to generate the exemplary Fx curve shown in FIG. 3. Fy may be estimated, as shown in FIG. 3.” (Para 0035)); and
the acquiring of the reference value comprises acquiring at least one of the accelerator operation amount, the brake operation amount, and the longitudinal acceleration of the target vehicle and a predicted value for a wheel velocity difference caused by a slope in the evaluation section (“The brake force capacity estimation means 28 may be connected to the brake control means 26. The brake force capacity estimation means 28 is adapted to estimate the brake force capacity of the vehicle 10 as a function of longitudinal wheel slip based on the friction-estimating braking applied by the brake control means 26. The estimated brake force may be expressed as longitudinal tyre force Fx and lateral tyre force Fy as a function longitudinal slip ratio, as show in FIG. 3. In FIG. 3, the vertical axis is tyre forces Fx, Fy [kN], and the horizontal axis is longitudinal slip ratio. Slip is the relative motion between a tyre and the road surface 36 it is moving on. A longitudinal slip ratio of 0 means that the tyre's rotational speed is equal to the free-rolling speed, whereas a longitudinal slip ratio of 1 means that the tyre is locked and just skids along the road surface 36. Fx as a function of slip may be determined based on: Fx=(BrakePressure*ToWheelTorque−(dwheelspeed/dt)*InertiaWheel)/WheelRadius slip=(vx−wheelspeed*WheelRadius)/vx (Para 0032), “wherein BrakePressure comes from the friction-estimating braking, ToWheelTorque is the brake factor, pressure to gained brake torque [bar/Nm], (dwheelspeed/dt) is the wheel acceleration, InertiaWheel is the rotational inertia of the studied wheel, and WheelRadius is the radius of the studied wheel. BrakePressure may have the unit [bar], ToWheelTorque may have the unit [Nm/bar], (dwheelspeed/dt) may have the unit [rad/ŝ2], InertiaWheel may have the unit [kgm̂2], and WheelRadius may have the unit [m]. BrakePresure may be sampled several times during the friction-estimating braking in order to generate the exemplary Fx curve shown in FIG. 3. Fy may be estimated, as shown in FIG. 3.” (Para 0035)).
In regards to claim 6, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 7, the closest prior art of record is Laine et al. (US 20180319380; hereinafter Laine) in view of Dagenais et al. (US 20090240399; hereinafter Dagenais). Laine in view of Dagenais teaches of the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
However, Laine in view of Dagenais does not fully teach of wherein the acquiring of the reference value comprises acquiring a wheel velocity difference in a state of the target vehicle traveling straight and at a constant velocity. It is noted that the prior art teaches of using reference values that are compared with a wheel velocity difference and of having a vehicle travel a constant speed on a straight road. However, the prior art does not fully teach of having the reference value be a wheel velocity difference when a vehicle is traveling straight and at a constant velocity, in combination with the remaining claim limitations. Therefore the claim is allowable subject matter.
In regards to claims 8-9, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 7, and are therefore allowable subject matter on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al. (US 20200064850) discloses of predicting the movement and skidding of vehicles based on the curves that the vehicle navigates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle J Kingsland whose telephone number is (571)272-3268. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00-4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights